Get one training topic by slug: overall and per-claim grades, how to apply it (sets, reps, rest), technique for exercises, who should be careful, FAQ, PubMed references, the supplements from this catalog that help with its goals, and the citable pageUrl (translations under "pt", "es", "de", "fr").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Training slug, e.g. "training-volume" (find it via search_training) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only retrieval ('Get one training topic') and discloses the returned payload in detail, which is the main behavioral trait. However, it says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown slug, auth/prerequisite needs, or rate limits.
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?
Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a single dense enumeration of the returned content. The long list is justified by a content-heavy response and no output schema, though the trailing translation note adds minor clutter.
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?
With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of enumerating the response payload fields, and the sole required parameter is fully covered. It stops short of describing error behavior for a missing/invalid slug, which is the one real gap for a lookup tool.
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 100% and the single 'slug' parameter is already documented in the schema, including the 'training-volume' example and the pointer to search_training. The description adds no syntax or format meaning 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get one training topic by slug') and then enumerates the exact content domain (grades, sets/reps/rest, technique, cautions, FAQ, PubMed refs, related supplements, pageUrl), which cleanly separates it from the parallel get_guide/get_supplement fetchers. An agent can tell what uniquely comes back from this tool without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is only implied: fetch by a known slug, with the 'find it via search_training' hint living in the schema rather than the description. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no comparison against search_training or the sibling get_* tools.
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.
