openGym MCP Bridge

preview_finish_workout_draft

Read-onlyIdempotent

Dry-run a workout draft through the validator to get an exact preview, draft revision, and 10-minute proposal without writing upstream.

Instructions

Dry-run the whole draft through the existing workout validator. Returns exact full preview, draft revision and 10-minute proposal. No upstream write.

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": {
      "draft_id": "<draft_id>"
    },
    "name": "preview_finish_workout_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`draft_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.1Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying it runs through the existing validator and returns an exact full preview, draft revision, and 10-minute proposal. 'No upstream write' is somewhat redundant with readOnlyHint but not contradictory.

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 three short sentences with the core action front-loaded. Every sentence contributes: the dry-run action, the return contents, and the no-write guarantee.

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 read-only preview tool with a simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the main action and return shape well. The remaining gap is that draft_id provenance and the meaning of '10-minute proposal' are not explained.

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?

There is one required parameter, draft_id, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description refers to 'the whole draft' but does not explain what draft_id represents, where to obtain it, or any format expectations beyond what the bare schema already says.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Dry-run the whole draft through the existing workout validator.' This clearly conveys that it previews finalization of a workout draft rather than editing or fetching it. It does not explicitly differentiate from nearby preview siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Dry-run' and 'No upstream write,' suggesting this is the safe preview step before finishing a draft. However, it does not state when to use this versus preview_workout_edit or other preview tools, nor does it list prerequisites or exclusions.

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