Bevel MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create a Bevel custom exercise

bevel_create_custom_exercise

Create a custom exercise in Bevel by defining its name, equipment, exercise type, and muscle groups, with optional dry-run validation when writes are disabled.

Instructions

Creates a custom exercise (captured shape). Equipment, exercise type and muscle groups must be values Bevel is known to use (captured or already in your data) unless allowUnverifiedValues is set. Requires BEVEL_ENABLE_WRITES=true unless dryRun is set.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "equipment": "<equipment>",
      "defaultExerciseType": "<defaultExerciseType>",
      "primaryMuscleGroups": "<primaryMuscleGroups>"
    },
    "name": "bevel_create_custom_exercise"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`dryRun`	No
`equipment`	Yes	e.g. band
`defaultExerciseType`	Yes	e.g. reps
`primaryMuscleGroups`	Yes	e.g. [hipFlexors]
`allowUnverifiedValues`	No
`secondaryMuscleGroups`	No	e.g. [calves]

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds materially: a server-side write gate (BEVEL_ENABLE_WRITES=true), a safe preview mode (dryRun), and a validation policy with an escape hatch. It stops short of saying what happens on a rejected value or whether a successful create is immediately visible, so it is not a full behavior contract.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then constraints, then the gating requirement. The parenthetical "(captured shape)" is internal jargon that costs a little clarity, but nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter mutation with open-world behavior and no output schema, the description covers the two things an agent could most easily get wrong: the write-enable prerequisite and the closed-vocabulary validation. Return values need not be described without an output schema, though failure modes and post-create visibility remain unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 57%, and the description compensates by explaining that equipment, defaultExerciseType and primaryMuscleGroups must be values Bevel recognizes, and that allowUnverifiedValues relaxes that constraint — meaning the schema does not convey. It leaves dryRun's exact effect on the response and secondaryMuscleGroups' value constraints implied.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Creates a custom exercise" is a specific verb+resource statement, and the parenthetical "(captured shape)" hints at the payload structure. It does not name or contrast with any sibling, but no sibling in the listed set overlaps with exercise creation, so the risk of confusion is low.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives conditional context for two flags (allowUnverifiedValues and dryRun) and a prerequisite (BEVEL_ENABLE_WRITES=true), which implies when the call will and will not succeed. It never states the use case itself (e.g. create when the exercise does not already exist in Bevel's catalog) or what to do instead if the exercise already exists.

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

Deploy Server