openGym MCP Bridge

get_exercise_history

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific exercise's logged history by ID, filtered by an inclusive date range and paginated with a cursor, preserving each occurrence from workout sessions.

Instructions

Read-only exercise history by ID, inclusive date range and cursor. Preserves each separate occurrence of an exercise in a session.

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": {
      "exercise_id": "<exercise_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_exercise_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	No
`from`	No
`limit`	No
`cursor`	No
`exercise_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.1Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying inclusive date ranges and that separate exercise occurrences are preserved, but it does not cover pagination behavior, authentication needs, or response shape.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single tight sentence with the most important scoping information front-loaded. There is no wasted language.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given five parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description covers the core concept but leaves meaningful invocation gaps, especially around limit behavior and date/cursor formatting.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter semantics. It mentions exercise ID, date range, and cursor, but omits the limit parameter entirely and does not clarify date format, cursor semantics, or default/maximum limit behavior.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: read-only exercise history by ID. It also clarifies date-range and cursor usage, so the tool is distinguishable from general workout tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

It states that the tool reads history by ID, which implies the basic usage condition, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like get_recent_workouts, get_workout, or search_exercises.

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