Retrieve a complete workout by program workout ID, including title, notes, blocks, exercises, prescriptions, results, and videos. Automatically finds the right team when team ID is omitted.
One session: title, notes, blocks, exercises with prescription, results and video.
team_id is optional; the right team is found automatically.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team_id | No | ||
| program_workout_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful trait — team scoping is resolved automatically — but says nothing about read-only semantics, behavior when the id is missing or inaccessible, permissions, or size/volume of the returned payload for a deeply nested session object.
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 short sentences with no filler, and the content overview comes first. The opening noun fragment ('One session: ...') is terse to the point of being cryptic, 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?
The absence of an output schema means the description must convey return shape, and it does list the main sections of a session. But for a deeply nested read tool with no annotations, it omits error behavior, whether the nesting is fully populated, and any indication of payload size.
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 meaningfully clarifies team_id (optional, auto-resolved, safe to omit) but says nothing about program_workout_id beyond its name, leaving the single required parameter's source and format unexplained.
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 enumerates the payload of a single session (title, notes, blocks, exercises with prescription, results and video), which implies retrieval. However, it is written as a noun fragment with no verb and never distinguishes this tool from look-alike siblings such as get_workout_history or get_set_exercise, so the agent must infer that this fetches one full workout by id.
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 only guidance is about a parameter ('team_id is optional; the right team is found automatically'), not about when to choose this tool over alternatives. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, even though the sibling list contains several overlapping read tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.