Skip to main content
Glama

MFIT Personal

by io.github.mcp-dir

mfit_workout_delete_routine

Destructive

Destructive operations on workout routines, sessions, and exercises. Actions: delete_routine — soft-delete a routine (moves to "Excluídas"; reversible) delete_session — remove a session from a routine (irreversible) delete_exercise — remove an exercise from a session (irreversible). Get exercise_session_id from mfit_workout get_session → exerciciosMontados.k{id}[0].idExercSession.

[Flattened action: delete_routine]

Bulk support: accepts routine_ids, session_ids, exercise_session_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNo
routine_idNo
session_idNo
routine_idsNo
session_idsNo
exercise_session_idNo
exercise_session_idsNo

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-readOnly. Description adds value by detailing soft-delete (reversible) vs irreversible, and bulk support. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Description is well-structured with bullet points and front-loaded purpose. Slightly verbose but efficient overall.

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?

Lacks explanation of return values and does not specify that at least one identifier parameter is needed. Sibling tool ambiguity is unresolved. Adequate but incomplete for a multi-action tool.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description adds some meaning (identifies key parameters like routine_id, session_id, exercise_session_id and bulk variants), but does not explain 'account' parameter or clarify required combinations.

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?

Description clearly states it handles destructive operations on routines, sessions, and exercises, specifying soft-delete vs irreversible. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools mfit_workout_delete_exercise and mfit_workout_delete_session, causing potential confusion.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., separate delete tools). Implies usage for any deletion but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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