Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Blocks

by zone.blocks
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

tag_activity

Set CONTEXT tags on one completed activity (full-array write; empty array clears). Tags describe how the session should be READ, not what it contained: workout (a plain training session — read it against the plan), heat (hot conditions — HR inflated, output depressed, expected), altitude (ridden high — hypoxic shift, lower power is normal), indoor (turbo trainer, treadmill or a virtual platform — still air means HR climbs through the session at unchanged power, so drift is expected and is not a fitness signal; speed, distance and pace are the platform's invention, so judge power, HR and RPE and never km or min/km, and never compare them with outdoor numbers), race (max effort by design — grade vs the race goal, not the plan), test (FTP/lactate/field test — peak efforts deliberate; consider estimate_thresholds after), group (group ride — surging, structure deviations expected), commute (transport volume, not training intent), offroad (a run on trail, park or dirt — its pace is the terrain's: judge HR, RPE and time, never compare its min/km with a road run). Use when the athlete tells you the context ('вчера была жара', 'это была гонка') or when you infer it and they confirm. Immediate write — the tag chips appear on the activity card.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
tagsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / tags / items / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "workout",
-  "heat",
-  "altitude",
-  "indoor",
-  "race",
-  "test",
-  "group",
-  "commute"
-]New value: +[
+  "workout",
+  "heat",
+  "altitude",
+  "indoor",
+  "race",
+  "test",
+  "group",
+  "commute",
+  "offroad"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / tags / maxItems
      Previous value: -8New value: +9
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover only safety hints; the description adds the crucial write semantics the annotations miss: it is a full-array replacement where an empty array clears all tags, and it writes immediately with chips appearing on the activity card (no confirmation step). It does not say what happens with an unknown or non-completed id, so the disclosure is strong but not total.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The front-loaded clause stating the write semantics is excellent, but the rest is a single sprawling sentence with deeply nested parentheticals that mixes tag definitions, judging instructions and follow-up actions. Every clause is arguably useful, yet the structure makes it hard to scan and would benefit from separating the tag vocabulary from the usage rules.

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?

For a two-parameter, non-read-only mutation with no output schema, the description covers write semantics, tag vocabulary, and usage triggers, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The remaining gap is the `id` contract (what identifies a valid, completed activity) and error behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the weight, and it does: it defines the operational meaning of all nine tag values (e.g. indoor means judge power/HR/RPE and ignore platform distance; offroad means never compare min/km to road runs). The `id` parameter gets only 'one completed activity', leaving its format and eligibility implicit.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set CONTEXT tags on one completed activity', and immediately scopes it as a full-array write where an empty array clears. That distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like set_activity_notes, rename_activity and edit_activity, which handle different facets of an activity.

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 when-to-use triggers with athlete-language examples ('вчера была жара', 'это была гонка') plus the inference-then-confirm path, and routes the agent to estimate_thresholds after tagging a test. It never states when not to tag or how this differs from notes-type siblings, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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

All Blocks 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