MFIT Personal

mfit_client_write_deactivate

Create / update / deactivate students in MFIT. Actions: create — register new student (name, email, phone required) update — edit student fields (partial update) deactivate — set student inactive (reversible via update) Field types — STATIC: gender (m/f). DYNAMIC: groupId (per-trainer, call mfit_client list_groups first).

[Flattened action: deactivate]

Bulk support: accepts client_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`email`	No
`phone`	No
`gender`	No
`account`	No
`groupId`	No
`lastName`	No
`birthDate`	No
`client_id`	No
`client_ids`	No
`blockOverdue`	No

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description adds that deactivation is reversible and bulk support exists, but annotations already provide no hints. It does not disclose permissions, idempotency, or parameter requirements for deactivation, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is relatively short but includes extraneous information about create and update for a deactivation-focused tool. The bullet list and flattened action note help, but the structure could be more focused.

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?

Given the complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, multiple actions), the description is incomplete. It does not clarify which parameters are relevant for deactivation, response format, or error handling.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain parameters but only lists required fields for create and mentions client_ids for deactivation. The 11 parameters are not mapped to actions, offering minimal value beyond the schema.

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?

The description states it can create, update, or deactivate students, but then specifies 'Flattened action: deactivate', creating confusion. The tool name and sibling tools suggest it is specifically for deactivation, yet the description includes actions for create and update.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the dedicated mfit_client_write_create and mfit_client_write_update siblings. It mentions actions but fails to provide clear guidance on tool selection.

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

All MFIT Personal tools Inspect

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.

mfit_client_write_deactivate

Input Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources