MFIT Personal

mfit_workout_write_update_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: update_routine]

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`day`	No
`goal`	No
`name`	No
`reps`	No
`rest`	No
`weight`	No
`account`	No
`endDate`	No
`serie_id`	No
`client_id`	No
`serie_ids`	No
`startDate`	No
`client_ids`	No
`difficulty`	No
`routine_id`	No
`session_id`	No
`exercise_id`	No
`routine_ids`	No
`session_ids`	No
`exercise_ids`	No
`instructions`	No
`trainingType`	No
`allowPdfDownload`	No
`showTrainingTime`	No
`exercise_session_id`	No
`exercise_session_ids`	No

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations are sparse (readOnly=false, destructiveHint=false). Description adds useful context: archive/unarchive are reversible, bulk support exists, and references other tools for IDs. However, it does not disclose whether updates overwrite or merge, authorization needs, or side effects beyond stated operations.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Description is lengthy and poorly structured. Key information like 'Flattened action: update_routine' and bulk support is buried at the end. The list of actions and options makes it verbose; a clearer ordering would help.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with 26 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, required parameters (none required, yet some actions need IDs), or the full behavior of each action. Relies on referencing other tools, but still incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It provides static option mappings for trainingType, goal, difficulty, day, and explains how to use serie_id and exercise_session_id via get_session. But many parameters (e.g., account, endDate, allowPdfDownload) are undocumented.

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 states 'Create / update workout routines, sessions, and exercises in MFIT', which is a clear verb+resource. However, it includes multiple sub-actions beyond updating (create, archive), and there is a sibling tool 'mfit_workout_write_create_routine' for creation, so the purpose blurs with siblings.

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?

Description mentions 'For destructive operations use mfit_workout_delete', providing a when-not for deletes. But it does not differentiate when to use this composite tool versus its sibling tools like mfit_workout_write_create_routine, mfit_workout_write_add_exercise, etc., leaving the agent to guess.

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

All MFIT Personal tools Inspect

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.

mfit_workout_write_update_routine

Input Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources