Read only planned or scheduled events from the Intervals calendar in a date window, not completed activities. This must not be the only source when a request may mean today's completed workout: call get_trainings first. Use this before rewriting or replacing an existing STAS plan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| newest | Yes | ||
| oldest | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the read-only nature, that it excludes completed activities, and warns that it must not be the sole source for completed workouts. It does not describe return format or pagination, but for a simple read operation this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose and exclusions, the second provides critical usage guidance. The most important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose, exclusions, alternative routing, and a specific use case (before rewriting a STAS plan). With no output schema and no annotations, it could mention return value shape, but for a read-only calendar listing with two self-descriptive parameters, the essential operational context is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It mentions 'in a date window,' which links the two parameters (oldest and newest) to defining the window and implies they are date boundaries. However, it does not explain inclusivity, ordering, or format details beyond what the schema's pattern already provides, so the compensation is partial.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Read'), a clear resource ('planned or scheduled events from the Intervals calendar'), and a scope ('in a date window'). It explicitly excludes 'completed activities,' which differentiates it from sibling tool get_trainings. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit routing: 'call get_trainings first' when the request may mean today's completed workout, and 'Use this before rewriting or replacing an existing STAS plan.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus alternatives and when to prioritize a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: plan events vs note events, goals/results vs profile sections, preview vs commit, history vs current sections. The boundaries are clearly defined in descriptions, so an agent can reliably select the right tool for a given task.
All tool names follow a predictable verb_noun snake_case pattern with consistent verbs (create, delete, get, preview, commit, read, restore, save). The use of 'get' for data retrieval and 'read' for profile-specific history/sections is internally consistent.
At 20 tools, the set is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the complexity of the coaching domain justifies the count. The preview/commit pairs and distinct resource types (goals, profile, plan, notes) each earn their place, though the set could be streamlined by merging some read tools.
The tool surface covers the main coaching workflows: reading athlete state, managing training plan and notes, editing goals/results, maintaining profile memory, and saving strategy. Minor gaps exist around explicit creation/deletion of goals and profile sections, which are not clearly supported outside the preview/commit flow.
