Retrieve last performance, personal record, and working max for a specific exercise, optionally as of a given date, to track strength progress and set accurate training loads.
Last performance, personal record and working max for an exercise.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| on_date | No | ||
| exercise_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and discloses essentially nothing behavioral: no confirmation that it is read-only, no indication of what happens when the exercise has no history, no auth requirements, and no sense of the result shape (one record? per-set entries?). The 'get' prefix implies a safe read but that is inference, not disclosure.
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?
It is a single sentence fragment with no padding, which is efficient. However, being a bare noun phrase rather than a front-loaded statement of action and scope means it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented optional date parameter, the description should do considerably more. It tells the agent roughly what comes back but nothing about how to call it correctly when on_date is supplied.
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 both parameters are undocumented in structured form. The phrase 'for an exercise' weakly implies exercise_id, but the optional on_date is entirely unexplained — its format, timezone, and whether it shifts the 'last performance' window or filters all three stats are unknowable from the definition.
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 names the returned data ('last performance, personal record and working max') and the scoping resource ('for an exercise'), so the content is identifiable. But it has no verb and never distinguishes itself from siblings get_personal_records and get_working_max, which appear to return overlapping data, leaving an agent unsure whether this tool aggregates them or duplicates them.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus get_personal_records or get_working_max, no mention of prerequisites (does the exercise need logged history?), and no exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.