Browse the trainer's workout library folders and saved routines. Use folder_id=0 for the root.
Bulk support: accepts folder_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| folder_id | No | ||
| folder_ids | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds value by noting batched execution support, which is a behavioral detail beyond annotations.
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?
The description is two sentences with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and key usage note.
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?
The description does not describe the output format or structure, and there is no output schema. While the read-only nature reduces need for side-effect details, the lack of return value information is a gap given the tool's complexity.
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%. The description adds meaning for folder_id (root usage) and folder_ids (bulk support) but ignores parameters 'type' and 'account'. It partially compensates.
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 verb 'Browse' and the resource 'workout library folders and saved routines'. It distinguishes from siblings like mfit_workout_get_routine and mfit_workout_get_session, which target specific items.
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 provides specific usage hints: 'Use folder_id=0 for the root' and 'Bulk support: accepts folder_ids'. It implies browsing rather than fetching a single routine, but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools.
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.