Skip to main content
Glama

MFIT Personal

by io.github.mcp-dir

mfit_client_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read students in MFIT. Actions: list — paginated list, filter by status/name get — full student profile list_groups — trainer's custom groups (DYNAMIC — call before creating/updating a student to get valid groupId) Field types — STATIC: status (0=active/1=inactive).

[Flattened action: get]

Bulk support: accepts client_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
searchNo
statusNoactive
accountNo
client_idNo
page_sizeNo
client_idsNo

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds useful behaviors beyond annotations: bulk execution via client_ids, dynamic nature of list_groups, and status field mapping. No contradiction with readOnlyHint and other annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is somewhat verbose but structured with bullet points and sections. Could be tightened, but the structure aids readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Tool has 7 parameters and no output schema; description does not explain return values or output format. Many behavioral aspects like pagination details are missing, leaving gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 0% description coverage. Description barely explains parameters: only status mapping (0=active/1=inactive) and client_ids for bulk. page, search, account, client_id are not described.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description starts with 'Read students in MFIT,' but then lists multiple actions (list, get, list_groups) with a note 'Flattened action: get', causing confusion about the primary purpose. It somewhat distinguishes from siblings like mfit_client_list but lacks crispness.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides guidance for list_groups ('call before creating/updating a student to get valid groupId') and mentions bulk support. However, no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like mfit_client_list or mfit_client_get.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All MFIT Personal toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Many tools have identical descriptions but different names (e.g., mfit_client_get, mfit_client_list, mfit_client_list_groups all share the same description text). The flattened action pattern creates multiple tools for each action, making it extremely difficult for an agent to choose the correct one. Tools like mfit_workout_write_add_exercise and mfit_workout_write_archive_routine share the same verbose description, leading to high ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

The naming follows a loose mfit_<domain>_<action> pattern, but there is inconsistency: some tools use 'get' (mfit_get_client_count), others use 'list' (mfit_client_list), and actions like 'write' are overloaded with multiple sub-actions. The pattern is not uniform, and the flattened action suffix adds confusion.

Tool Count2/5

With 48 tools, the count is excessive for what appears to be a single-domain server (personal training management). Many tools are redundant because they only differ by a single action parameter. The number could be reduced significantly by consolidating related operations.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of functionality: client management, workouts, exercises, files, finances, retention, and feedback. However, there are notable gaps such as direct messaging, advanced analytics, or payment processing. The duplication of tools also suggests that the actual feature set is less complete than the tool count implies.

Resources