Skip to main content
Glama

MFIT Personal

by io.github.mcp-dir

mfit_client_list

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: list]

Bulk support: accepts client_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
searchNo
statusNoactive
accountNo
client_idNo
page_sizeNo
client_idsNo

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent. Description adds further behavioral context: paginated listing, filtering by status/name, and bulk support with client_ids. Exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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 structured with sections but includes extraneous details (get, list_groups actions) that confuse the scope. The 'Flattened action: list' clarification helps but adds redundancy.

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?

Despite annotations, description lacks return format, error handling, auth requirements, and comprehensive explanation of all parameters. With no output schema and high parameter count, more detail is needed.

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 coverage is 0%. Description mentions filtering by status/name and notes status field values, but does not explain most parameters (page, search, client_id, client_ids, account, page_size). Inadequate compensation for 7 undefined params.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states 'Read students in MFIT' and specifies the 'list' action for paginated listing. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mfit_client_get and mfit_client_list_groups.

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?

Implies that this tool is for listing students, mentions filter and bulk support, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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