Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Phorme Training

by me.phor
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get my 1:1 clients

coach_clients
Read-only

Use this when a Phorme coach (or their agent) asks about their 1:1 clients: who they are, when each is due a check-in, when the coach last reviewed them, when they last trained, sessions kept over 28 days, and flags such as missed sessions or pain reported. Only the coach's own paying 1:1 clients are listed; a client who paid but has not opened the app yet shows in_app false. It reads only. It needs a connected Phorme account that owns the brain.

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>"
    },
    "name": "coach_clients"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
brain_idYesThe brain id of the coach's own build, for example "cameron".

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
clientsYesEach client: client_id, name, in_app, paid_until, started_on, next_check_in, reviewed_on, last_trained, kept_28d ("done of due") and flags.
brain_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real value beyond them: the auth/prerequisite ('needs a connected Phorme account that owns the brain') and the scoping quirk ('a client who paid but has not opened the app yet shows in_app false'). It doesn't discuss pagination or limits, but the added prerequisite and edge-case behavior are substantive.

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?

The trigger condition is front-loaded and the field enumeration is dense but purposeful. The first sentence is long and list-heavy, but little is wasted and the auth note is compact.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values, yet it helpfully previews the fields and the in_app edge case. Auth requirement and scoping are covered. For a one-param read tool this is nearly complete, though it omits result-size or ordering behavior.

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 coverage is 100% and the single brain_id parameter is fully documented in the schema with an example. The description references 'the brain' ownership but adds no syntax, format, or interpretation guidance for the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Uses a clear implicit verb (list/read) with a specific resource — the coach's own 1:1 clients — and enumerates what each record carries (check-in due date, last reviewed, last trained, sessions kept over 28 days, flags). This clearly separates it from per-client siblings like coach_client_brief, coach_client_post, and coach_client_reviewed.

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?

Explicitly scopes usage: 'Use this when a Phorme coach (or their agent) asks about their 1:1 clients.' It also constrains results to the coach's own paying 1:1 clients. It does not name when to prefer a sibling tool (e.g., coach_client_brief for depth), so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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

All Phorme Training toolsInspect
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.

Resources