Skip to main content
Glama

mfit_workout_write_create_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: create_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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With all annotation hints false, description provides crucial behavioral details: archive/unarchive status behavior, add_exercise adds empty set, bulk execution. Discloses reversible nature of archive. Lacks return value info but sufficient for safe usage.

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 front-loaded with overall purpose, then bullet actions, options, sibling references. Well-organized but slightly verbose; could be more concise while retaining value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 26 params, no output schema, and no enums in schema, description provides essential context: action definitions, parameter relationships, enum values, and tool chaining. Missing explanation for some less common parameters but covers core workflow thoroughly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 0% description coverage; description adds meaning for many parameters (client_id, routine_id, session_id, etc.) through action context and lists static options for enums (trainingType, goal, difficulty, day). Some params (e.g., instructions, allowPdfDownload) not explained, but overall compensates well.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'Create / update workout routines, sessions, and exercises in MFIT.' and lists specific actions (create_routine, update_routine, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling delete tools (mfit_workout_delete_*).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly guides use of sibling tools: use mfit_search_exercises for exercise_id, mfit_workout_get_session for series IDs, and directs destructive operations to mfit_workout_delete. Also mentions bulk support.

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.