Retrieve complete workout sessions from the past N days to review training history and analyze exercise data in one action.
Convenience: list and fully load every workout session from the last N days.
Args: days: Look-back window in days (1-365).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose that the tool loads full workout sessions rather than just metadata, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention pagination, auth, rate limits, or other potential behavior beyond the basic load.
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?
The description is short, front-loads the tool's purpose, and has exactly one parameter line. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy.
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?
For a one-parameter convenience loader with an output schema present, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly. It could mention alternate tools more explicitly, but the simple scope and output schema reduce the need for further detail.
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?
The schema provides no description for 'days', but the tool description explains that it is a look-back window in days and gives an explicit valid range of 1-365. This adds real meaning beyond the bare integer schema.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('list and fully load') and the resource ('every workout session from the last N days'). The phrase 'fully load' and the sibling names make it distinguishable from list_workout_sessions and get_workout_session.
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?
The word 'Convenience' implies this is the bulk-recent-loading alternative to more granular siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.