Skip to main content
Glama

MFIT Personal

by io.github.mcp-dir

mfit_client_write_update

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: update]

Bulk support: accepts client_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
emailNo
phoneNo
genderNo
accountNo
groupIdNo
lastNameNo
birthDateNo
client_idNo
client_idsNo
blockOverdueNo

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (which are all false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: deactivation is reversible via update, gender is statically constrained to m/f, groupId is dynamic and requires a prerequisite call to list_groups, and bulk execution via client_ids is supported. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and preconditions.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is very concise, using a structured list to clearly separate actions and field types. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and limited annotations, the description is moderately complete. It explains the main actions and bulk support but lacks details on return values, error handling, and several parameters. Additional context about side effects or response format would improve completeness.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The description explains a subset of parameters (name, email, phone for create; gender; groupId; client_ids) but leaves 5 of 11 parameters undocumented (e.g., lastName, birthDate, account, blockOverdue, client_id). With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but remains incomplete for many parameters.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool creates, updates, and deactivates students in MFIT, and identifies the default action as update via '[Flattened action: update]'. However, the inclusion of create and deactivate when dedicated siblings exist (mfit_client_write_create, mfit_client_write_deactivate) introduces slight ambiguity about which tool to use for each action.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the create or deactivate siblings. The description implies it handles multiple actions but does not specify conditions for choosing this tool over its counterparts. The '[Flattened action: update]' hint is insufficient to guide 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 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