Phorme Training

Get a 1:1 client's brief

coach_client_brief

Read-only

Use this when a Phorme coach wants to review one of their 1:1 clients before a check-in or before writing their training. It returns the client's goal, week, movements they never do, training maxes, the next 14 days of their plan, sessions done in the last 28 days with their numbers, sleep, HRV, resting heart rate, steps and bodyweight, food targets against what they logged, and pain notes. Never their chats with the AI. The client's data is for coaching that client only; never share it elsewhere. It reads only and needs a client_id from coach_clients.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "brain_id": "<brain_id>",
      "client_id": "<client_id>"
    },
    "name": "coach_client_brief"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`brain_id`	Yes	The brain id of the coach's own build, for example "cameron".
`client_id`	Yes	The client_id of one of the coach's 1:1 clients, from coach_clients.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	No
`food`	No
`goal`	No
`pain`	No
`maxes`	No
`never`	No
`brain_id`	No
`done_28d`	No
`plan_14d`	No
`schedule`	No
`client_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 1, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: an explicit data exclusion ("Never their chats with the AI") and a confidentiality constraint ("for coaching that client only; never share it elsewhere"). "It reads only" merely restates the annotation, and nothing covers failure modes such as passing a client that is not the coach's.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger and followed by the payload list, privacy note, and read-only statement. The long comma-separated inventory of returned data is dense but earns its place for tool selection; a few items could be grouped more tersely.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations already carry the safety profile. What remains an agent decision input — when to call it, where client_id comes from, what is deliberately excluded, and the confidentiality rule — is all stated.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the coach_clients provenance of client_id that the description repeats. brain_id is never mentioned in the description, and no added meaning (format, constraints, failure behavior) is contributed beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("review one of their 1:1 clients") and enumerates the returned payload in detail, which lets an agent distinguish this composite brief from narrower tools like coach_client_workout or coach_clients. It never explicitly contrasts itself with a named sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete triggering situations ("before a check-in or before writing their training") and points to coach_clients as the source of client_id. It offers no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for partial lookups, but the context is clear enough to select correctly.

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

All Phorme Training tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.