Retrieve completed workouts from the past N days, including exercises, sets, weights, and reps, to review recent training history.
Completed workouts of the last days days (including today) with exercises, sets, weights and reps.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and usefully discloses that results are limited to completed workouts and include today. However, it does not mention ordering, pagination, maximum range, or whether incomplete workouts are excluded beyond the word 'completed'.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It efficiently packs timeframe, completion status, and returned exercise detail.
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 simple one-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential scope and contents. It is slightly incomplete on operational details such as ordering and maximum lookback, and it does not clarify sibling selection.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by defining `days` as the lookback window in days and clarifying that today is included, which is meaningful 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 states a specific resource and scope: completed workouts over the last `days` days, including today, with exercise/set/weight/rep detail. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `get_workouts`.
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?
Usage is implied by the recent-timeframe and completed-workout scope, so an agent can infer this is for recent completed workouts. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of `get_workouts`, `get_strength_history`, or other workout-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.