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 of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get'), which is helpful, but doesn't mention other behavioral aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. The description adds basic context but lacks depth for a tool with no annotations.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and usage well, but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error handling) and output format, which would be helpful since there's no output schema. However, for a straightforward read tool, it provides sufficient context for basic use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'workout_id' documented as 'Workout ID from tp_get_workouts.' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 specific action ('Get single workout details') and resource ('by ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like tp_get_workouts (which lists multiple workouts) and tp_get_workout_prs (which focuses on personal records). It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use after tp_get_workouts to drill into one workout.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (after obtaining workout IDs from tp_get_workouts) and distinguishes it from the sibling tool tp_get_workouts, which serves a different purpose (listing workouts rather than getting details).

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