Skip to main content
Glama

mfit_workout_write_archive_routine

Create / update workout routines, sessions, and exercises in MFIT. Actions: create_routine — create a new workout routine for a student update_routine — edit routine name, dates, goal, difficulty, etc. archive_routine — archive a routine (status=1, reversible) unarchive_routine — restore archived routine to active (status=0) create_session — add a training session (day) to a routine add_exercise — add an exercise to a session (use mfit_search_exercises to find exercise_id). Added with 1 empty set — use update_serie to configure. update_serie — set reps, weight, rest for a serie. Get serie_id and exercise_session_id from mfit_workout get_session → exerciciosMontados.k{id}[0].series[0].id and .idExercSession.

Static options: trainingType: 1=Dia da Semana, 2=Numérico goal: 1=Hipertrofia, 2=Redução de gordura, 3=Redução de gordura/hipertrofia, 4=Definição muscular, 5=Condicionamento físico, 6=Qualidade de vida difficulty: 1=Iniciante, 2=Intermediário, 3=Avançado, 4=Adaptação day (session): 1=Domingo, 2=Segunda, 3=Terça, 4=Quarta, 5=Quinta, 6=Sexta, 7=Sábado

For destructive operations (delete routine / session / exercise) use mfit_workout_delete.

[Flattened action: archive_routine]

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dayNo
goalNo
nameNo
repsNo
restNo
weightNo
accountNo
endDateNo
serie_idNo
client_idNo
serie_idsNo
startDateNo
client_idsNo
difficultyNo
routine_idNo
session_idNo
exercise_idNo
routine_idsNo
session_idsNo
exercise_idsNo
instructionsNo
trainingTypeNo
allowPdfDownloadNo
showTrainingTimeNo
exercise_session_idNo
exercise_session_idsNo

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which align with the description's assertion that archive_routine is reversible. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations imply, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is well-structured with bullet points for actions and static options, but it is somewhat lengthy and includes the confusing 'Flattened action' note. Every sentence serves a purpose, but the redundancy due to the name mismatch reduces conciseness.

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?

Given 26 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description provides substantial context: action breakdown, enum lists, bulk support, and references to sibling tools. However, it does not cover all parameters or describe return values, leaving gaps for a tool this complex.

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 schema description coverage at 0% and 26 parameters, the description partially compensates by listing actions and their relevant parameters, plus enum options. However, many parameters (e.g., account, allowPdfDownload) remain unexplained. The added value is moderate, not enough to reach a 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description lists multiple actions (create, update, archive, etc.) but the tool name ends with 'archive_routine', creating confusion. The 'Flattened action: archive_routine' suggests a specific purpose, yet the intro claims 'Create / update workout routines, sessions, and exercises'. This inconsistency muddles the tool's core purpose, earning a 3.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidelines for destructive operations (referring to mfit_workout_delete) and suggests using mfit_search_exercises to find exercise IDs. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like mfit_workout_write_create_routine or mfit_workout_write_update_routine. The context is helpful but not sufficiently prescriptive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

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.