Appends library exercises to a personal training session as separate blocks and returns the IDs needed to set prescriptions or update each block.
Append library exercises to a personal session, each in its own block.
Returns the ids needed by set_prescription and update_block.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workout_id | Yes | ||
| exercise_ids | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavior beyond the signature — that each exercise becomes its own block and that the call returns ids consumed downstream — but it says nothing about ordering, duplicate/invalid exercise handling, or side effects on an already-populated session.
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?
Two sentences with no filler, and the core action plus its block-per-exercise behavior is front-loaded. The second sentence is a slightly telegraphic fragment but still earns its place by flagging the downstream dependency.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description correctly points at consumers of those ids. It remains incomplete on the workout_id semantics and on how the tool relates to add_to_block, both of which an agent needs to choose correctly among 29 siblings.
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 for both parameters. It clarifies that exercise_ids are 'library' exercises and that the result feeds set_prescription/update_block, but never explains that workout_id is the personal session identifier, leaving the primary key ambiguous.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Append library exercises to a personal session') and adds a distinguishing structural detail: each exercise goes into its own block. That implicitly separates it from add_to_block, but the sibling is never named, so the split still requires inference.
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 phrasing 'append to a personal session', and the mention of set_prescription/update_block hints at a workflow sequence. There is no explicit when-to-use vs add_to_block, no prerequisites, and no statement about what to do if the exercise already exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.