Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Blocks

by zone.blocks
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

update_plan_workouts

Destructive

The same kind of edit on MANY scheduled workouts — ONE card instead of one per session; use it for an edit covering more than three sessions. Each edits item is date + iid + the fields that change, each meaning what it means in update_plan_workout. Structure, gym content, sport and the key star: update_plan_workout, one by one. An edit the single tool would refuse is an invalid line on the card; the rest land.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
whyNoONE line, in the athlete's language: WHY this change — the reason from the conversation ("travel Thu-Fri, long ride moved to Sat", "deload after 3 build weeks"). The athlete's other assistant surface reads it later; without it, it sees only that the plan changed. No health details beyond what the plan needs.
editsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / edits / items / properties / context / items / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "workout",
-  "heat",
-  "altitude",
-  "indoor",
-  "race",
-  "test",
-  "group",
-  "commute"
-]New value: +[
+  "workout",
+  "heat",
+  "altitude",
+  "indoor",
+  "race",
+  "test",
+  "group",
+  "commute",
+  "offroad"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / edits / items / properties / time
      Added value: +{
+  "pattern": "^(([01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d)?$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=false-style flags supplied (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses partial-failure semantics: 'An edit the single tool would refuse is an invalid line on the card; the rest land,' telling the agent the batch is non-atomic and per-line validation applies. It does not mention the 80-item cap or any permission/ownership prerequisites.

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 opening clause is front-loaded and efficient, but the sentence 'Structure, gym content, sport and the key star: update_plan_workout, one by one' is a telegraphic fragment that is hard to parse on first read. Several ideas are packed into run-on clauses, costing clarity even though nothing is strictly padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive batch-mutation tool with no output schema, it covers routing and partial-success behavior but omits the item ceiling (80), the two-item minimum, and the fact that 'why' is surfaced to another assistant surface. An agent could still call it correctly, but the operating envelope is underspecified.

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 only 50%, and the description compensates partially by explaining that each edits item is date + iid + the changing fields and that each field means what it means in update_plan_workout. It leaves the remaining fields (goal, note, time, fuelG, target, context) and the 'why' rationale field entirely to the schema, so it adds moderate rather than full meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource — 'the same kind of edit on MANY scheduled workouts' — and contrasts it with the one-per-session alternative, so it is immediately distinguishable from update_plan_workout and plan_workouts. The only fuzziness is the routing threshold ('more than three sessions'), which does not match the schema's minItems of 2.

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?

It gives a concrete selection rule (edits covering more than three sessions) and explicitly routes structural changes, gym content, sport changes and key/starred sessions to update_plan_workout one by one, which is exactly the when-not guidance an agent needs. The rule is stated in a compressed fragment rather than a clean exclusion list, and it conflicts slightly with the schema's two-item minimum.

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