Phorme Training

Plan a sport training week

preview_sport_week

Read-only

Use this when the user plays a sport and wants their gym days for a week planned around it, for example two lifting days during basketball season. It picks the closest coach-built Phorme sport program and returns one week of sessions sized to the days the user has, with sets, reps, coach notes and a demo link for each exercise. It reads only and changes nothing in any account. If Phorme has no program for that sport it says so in match_quality and limits. Do not use it for injury rehab, team practice plans for children, or nutrition.

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": {
      "sport": "<sport>",
      "gym_days_per_week": "<gym_days_per_week>"
    },
    "name": "preview_sport_week"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sport`	Yes	The sport or position, for example "basketball", "volleyball" or "wide receiver".
`season_phase`	No	Where the user is in their season, only if they said.
`gym_days_per_week`	Yes	Gym days the user has this week. Ask when the user did not say.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`brain`	No	The coaching brain whose method the week follows: name, coach, focus, how_it_trains and image_url (Phorme's own picture). Name it to the user.
`sport`	Yes
`limits`	Yes	What this week does not cover. Tell the user.
`program`	Yes	The coach-built program the week comes from.
`sessions`	Yes	One entry per gym day, each with a title and exercises.
`week_number`	No
`match_quality`	Yes	exact_sport: a program written for this sport. related: the closest program. none: a general athletic program.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 8, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / brain / description

Previous value: -"The coaching brain whose method the week follows: name, coach, focus and how_it_trains. Name it to the user."New value: +"The coaching brain whose method the week follows: name, coach, focus, how_it_trains and image_url (Phorme's own picture). Name it to the user."

Changed1 schema field changedOct 8, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / brain

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The coaching brain whose method the week follows: name, coach, focus and how_it_trains. Name it to the user.",
+  "type": [
+    "object",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

First observedOct 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds a selection heuristic (closest coach-built program) and a fallback behavior (match_quality and limits when no program exists). This goes beyond the annotations, though the 'reads only and changes nothing' statement is largely redundant.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: usage trigger, behavior, safety, and exclusions. Front-loaded with the primary use case and no wasted language.

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?

The description covers usage, exclusions, and a failure mode, while annotations handle safety and an output schema covers return structure. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 the schema already documents sport, season_phase, and gym_days_per_week. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

States the specific action (plan a sport training week) and resource (one week of gym sessions built from a Phorme sport program), and the 'use this when' clause distinguishes it from race planning and generic program retrieval siblings. The concrete basketball example makes the intent unambiguous.

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?

Provides a clear when-to-use clause and explicit exclusions (injury rehab, children's team practice plans, nutrition). However, it does not name an alternative sibling tool to use instead in the excluded cases, so it falls short of the top score.

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.