Retrieves a user's training notes—runs, how they felt, mobility impressions, and free-weight loads not recorded in EGYM—so an AI assistant can add context missing from workout data.
Training notes: runs, how the user felt, mobility impressions, free-weight loads that are not in EGYM.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it never states that this is a read-only operation, whether notes are paginated or time-bounded, or whose notes are returned. The one genuinely useful disclosure is the scope boundary 'free-weight loads that are not in EGYM', which clarifies what this data covers relative to the EGYM-sourced tools.
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?
A single short fragment with no filler, front-loaded with the resource name. It is under-punctuated and reads like a keyword list rather than a sentence, but nothing is wasted.
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?
With zero parameters and an output schema present, return values and inputs need no explanation, so the definition is close to complete for a simple read tool. The remaining gap is the total absence of usage framing and of any explicit read-only statement, which no annotation covers.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description adds nothing beyond the schema because no parameter semantics exist to add.
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 fragment lists the note contents (runs, felt state, mobility, free-weight loads not in EGYM), which tells an agent what data comes back, but there is no verb — the read action is only implied by the tool name. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_recent_workouts or add_training_note.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. An agent must guess whether to call this versus get_recent_workouts or get_strength_history for overlapping information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.