List students by retention status: AT_RISK (may churn), ABANDONED (stopped training), ACTIVE, or all. Shows days since last workout, avg weekly workouts, WhatsApp link. Much more useful than listing clients — this tells you WHO NEEDS ATTENTION.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | ||
| account | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not required to repeat that. The description adds value by disclosing returned data fields (days since last workout, avg weekly workouts, WhatsApp link) and the filtering by status, which is not evident from annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with key information. Every sentence adds value, though the comparative claim is somewhat promotional. Could be slightly more structured, but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return fields. However, it lacks parameter documentation for 'account' and does not clarify how the retention statuses map to parameters or the exact output structure. Sibling tools like mfit_get_retention exist, but the description does not differentiate from them.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains the 'status' parameter by listing possible values (AT_RISK, ABANDONED, ACTIVE, all), but does not describe the 'account' parameter at all. This leaves a significant gap for a tool with two parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists students by retention status (AT_RISK, ABANDONED, ACTIVE, or all) and provides specific data fields returned. It explicitly distinguishes itself from generic client listing by emphasizing it identifies who needs attention, making the purpose highly specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives strong usage guidance by comparing to client listing ('Much more useful than listing clients — this tells you WHO NEEDS ATTENTION'), implying when to prefer this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling retention tools (e.g., mfit_get_retention).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.