Save an athlete's session notes, RPE (1-10), and rating for a program workout; use it to capture post-session feedback, not to log per-set results or mark the workout complete.
Save the athlete's session notes, RPE (1-10) and rating.
This does not log per-set results or mark the session completed; that is done in the TrainHeroic app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rpe | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| rating | No | ||
| 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, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does clarify the scope boundary against the app, but it does not say whether the call overwrites previously saved feedback, whether it is idempotent, whether athlete/team context is required, or what happens on failure — all material for a write tool.
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 tight sentences, with the affirmative scope stated first and the exclusion second. No filler, though the stray line break and the slightly awkward 'that is done in the TrainHeroic app' clause cost it a point.
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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers intent and scope but not the mechanics: two parameters are undocumented, the RPE/rating distinction is unaddressed, and the return behavior after saving is unstated.
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 coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It names three of them (notes, RPE, rating) but leaves team_id and the required program_workout_id completely unexplained, and — most importantly — never clarifies how RPE (integer 1-10) differs from rating (number 0-10), which is the one ambiguity an agent would most likely get wrong.
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?
Uses a concrete verb ('Save') with a specific resource ('the athlete's session notes, RPE and rating'), and immediately bounds the scope by excluding per-set logging and session completion. It doesn't name any sibling tool, so the differentiation is by exclusion rather than by comparison, which keeps it just short of a 5.
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 description says what this tool is NOT for ('does not log per-set results or mark the session completed; that is done in the TrainHeroic app'), which is a genuine exclusion. But it never states the positive trigger condition (e.g., 'after finishing a workout') or points to any sibling such as submit_survey or get_workout_surveys, so the agent must infer when to call it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.