Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Running Companion MCP Server

Running Companion MCP Server

by Dtsiakas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid
This server has been deprecated

Personal project, not offered for public use.

Progress, milestones and year in review

get_progress
Read-only

Retrieve lifetime running totals, milestones, records, personal bests, and optional year-in-review or monthly form data to track progress and plan next goals.

Instructions

Lifetime totals, milestones passed with their dates (total km, run counts, first times under round times per distance), the next milestones with an estimated date at the recent pace, records (longest run, biggest week and month, weekly streaks) and personal bests per distance. Pass year for that year in review (volume, consistency, PBs set, fitness and resting values from start to end of year, time of day, hottest and coldest run, against the previous year). Pass form: true for running form by month on easy runs, adjusted to the same pace.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_progress"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formNo
yearNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.3

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The read-only annotations already establish safety, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it describes computed estimates, year-over-year comparisons, pace-adjusted form data, and the specific domains covered. It does not mention data freshness or sync dependencies, but it is substantially richer than the annotations alone.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is dense but organized into three clear sentences: default outputs, year mode, and form mode. The first sentence is long and nested, but every listed item adds useful scope rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a good job enumerating the categories of returned data for default, year, and form modes. It could be more complete by clarifying whether year and form can be combined or by noting data freshness, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains that year triggers a year-in-review output with specific contents, and that form: true returns monthly running form on easy runs adjusted to the same pace, fully compensating for the bare schema.

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 clearly identifies the resource: lifetime totals, milestones, records, personal bests, plus year-in-review and form modes. It is specific about the data returned but does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings such as get_best_efforts or get_trend.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explains what passing year or form: true will produce, which guides parameter usage. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_trend, get_best_efforts, or get_weekly_summary, leaving selection to inference.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools