TrainingPeaks-MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns daily values, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover other traits like whether it's read-only, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.

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?

The description is highly concise and well-structured in two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and return type, and the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and how to use the parameter, but lacks details on return format (e.g., structure of daily values), error cases, or integration with sibling tools. For a simple tool, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 100%, with the parameter 'days' fully documented in the schema. The description adds some value by explaining usage contexts (14-30 days for recent trend, 90 for full picture), but doesn't provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get fitness/fatigue trend (CTL/ATL/TSB).' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('fitness/fatigue trend'), and mentions the specific metrics (CTL/ATL/TSB). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tp_get_workouts or tp_get_profile, which might also relate to fitness data, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: 'use 14-30 days for recent trend, 90 for full picture.' This gives practical guidance on parameter selection. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools, such as tp_get_peaks for peak performance data, so it's not fully explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.