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_session]
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, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the content of the response (exercises, series, exercise IDs) and the bulk execution capability with routine_ids and session_ids. 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?
The description is relatively concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The bullet list of actions and bulk support note are useful. Some redundancy exists (tool name already implies session focus), but overall it is well-structured.
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 explains the session content and bulk support but does not address the required parameters (none are required, but usage context is missing), response structure (no output schema), or how routine_id and session_id relate. Given five parameters and no output schema, more detail would improve completeness.
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 description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains that routine_ids and session_ids enable batched execution, which helps for the array parameters. However, it does not clarify the use of individual routine_id and session_id parameters or the account parameter.
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 reads workout routines and sessions, specifically detailing 'get_session -- session prescription with all exercises, series, and exercise IDs'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_routine' action, making the purpose 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 outlines two separate actions (get_routine and get_session) which helps the agent choose between them. It also mentions bulk support. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others or provide exclusion criteria.
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.