Ranking of students who trained the most in a period (default: current month). Uses bulk frequency checks and returns top performers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| month | No | ||
| status | No | active | |
| account | No | ||
| end_date | No | ||
| start_date | No | ||
| include_frequency_payload | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds that it uses 'bulk frequency checks' and 'returns top performers', providing some behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. No mention of authentication or edge cases, but adequate given annotation coverage.
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 concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loads the essential purpose and behavior. Ideal length for a quick understanding.
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?
With 7 parameters and no output schema or parameter descriptions, the description is too minimal. It does not explain key parameters like 'limit', 'status', 'account', 'include_frequency_payload', or the expected output format. Missing critical details for proper invocation.
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% and the description provides no information about any of the 7 parameters. The only hint is 'in a period (default: current month)' which loosely relates to 'month' or date parameters, but no concrete semantics. This is insufficient for a tool with many 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?
Description clearly states it ranks students by training frequency in a period (default: current month). The verb 'ranking' and resource 'students trained' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool mfit_get_training_frequency, which might also involve frequency checks.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for ranking/top performers, but does not mention when not to use it or provide comparisons with siblings like mfit_get_training_frequency or mfit_get_client_workouts.
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.