Cronometer MCP

edit_exercise

Idempotent

Modify the duration or calorie burn of a logged exercise entry, using the exercise ID and optional date, to keep your Cronometer diary accurate.

Instructions

Change the duration or calorie burn of a logged exercise.

Args: exercise_id: The exercise ID, from get_food_log. minutes: New duration in minutes. calories_burned: New burn, as a positive number. date: Date the entry is on as YYYY-MM-DD (defaults to today).

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": {
      "exercise_id": "<exercise_id>"
    },
    "name": "edit_exercise"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	No
`minutes`	No
`exercise_id`	Yes
`calories_burned`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already convey the mutation, idempotency, and non-destructive profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the date default and the positive-number constraint, but does not disclose failure behavior or side effects; this is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single clear purpose sentence followed by a compact, information-dense argument list. Every line earns its place and the main action is front-loaded.

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 simple edit tool with an output schema and annotation coverage, this is nearly complete. The one notable gap is that it does not state that at least one of minutes or calories_burned should be supplied, since both are optional in the schema.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description documents every parameter with meaning beyond the schema: exercise_id source, minutes unit, calories_burned positivity, and date format with default. This fully compensates for the bare input schema.

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?

The description states a specific action and resource: 'Change the duration or calorie burn of a logged exercise.' This clearly identifies an edit operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_exercise and remove_exercise.

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?

The phrase 'logged exercise' gives clear context that this tool modifies an existing entry rather than creating or deleting one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended usage is easily inferred from the sibling set.

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

Deploy Server