openGym MCP Bridge

get_plan

Retrieves existing workout plan details—routine IDs, exercise slots, weights, reps, sets, weekly assignments, and overrides—so you can reference exact IDs when making changes.

Instructions

Read-only. Show existing routine IDs, exercise slots (zero-based indices), weights, reps and sets, weekly assignments and one-off overrides. Use these exact IDs for changes.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.1Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does state 'Read-only,' plus it discloses operative details an agent needs: slot indices are zero-based and IDs must be used verbatim for later mutations. It does not describe the response structure or ordering beyond the field list, but the safety profile and key semantics are covered.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the read-only guarantee and then the returned payload. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant padding.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must double as a return-value spec, and it does enumerate the meaningful fields. It is nearly complete for a zero-parameter read tool, lacking only ordering/nesting detail about how the returned plan is structured.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The mention of 'these exact IDs' refers to returned data rather than inputs, which is consistent with the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Show') and enumerated resource contents: routine IDs, exercise slots with zero-based indices, weights, reps, sets, weekly assignments and overrides. This is far more concrete than siblings like get_status or get_summary, though it never names the sibling it is not (e.g., preview_plan_change) to sharpen the boundary.

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?

'Read-only' and 'Use these exact IDs for changes' imply the usage pattern — fetch this before issuing changes — but the prerequisites and alternatives are implicit. No sibling is named and no exclusion (when NOT to call it) is given, so routing depends on inference.

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