Read workout routines and sessions in MFIT. Actions: get_routine — routine details with all sessions get_session — session prescription with all exercises, series, and exercise IDs
[Flattened action: get_routine]
Bulk support: accepts routine_ids, session_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| routine_id | No | ||
| session_id | No | ||
| routine_ids | No | ||
| session_ids | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds bulk support details but omits explanation of the 'Flattened action' concept and does not disclose error conditions or limitations.
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?
Relatively concise with three clear segments: purpose, action list, bulk support. Could be slightly more structured but effective.
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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain how to retrieve a single session versus routine, or when to use bulk parameters. Lacks completeness for an agent to use without trial and error.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description should clarify each parameter's role. It only mentions routine_ids and session_ids for bulk, leaving account, routine_id, and session_id unexplained. No detail on parameter relationships or optionality.
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 it reads workout routines and sessions, listing two specific actions (get_routine and get_session). However, it doesn't differentiate itself from the sibling tool mfit_workout_get_session, which likely has a similar purpose.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling mfit_workout_get_session. The description mentions bulk support but lacks explicit context for selection between routine_id/session_id and bulk arrays.
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.