openGym MCP Bridge

preview_workout_edit

Read-onlyIdempotent

Dry-run edits to a saved workout and preview before/after changes, added or removed sets, and PR or volume effects before applying.

Instructions

Dry-run edit one saved stable workout_id in place. Sequential zero-based indices refer to the result of earlier actions. Shows before/after, added/removed sets and PR/volume effects. Preserves notes/media/unknown fields. Date/time migration, structural superset edits and complex-set internals are unsupported.

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": {
      "workout_id": "<workout_id>",
      "actions": "<actions>"
    },
    "name": "preview_workout_edit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`actions`	Yes
`workout_id`	Yes

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive/idempotent, and the description adds real value on top: it describes the returned diff ('before/after, added/removed sets and PR/volume effects') and guarantees field preservation ('notes/media/unknown fields'). It omits error behavior for an invalid or non-existent workout_id and whether a preview expires.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the dry-run purpose, then index semantics, then output content, then constraints. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

For a deeply nested 2-parameter mutation-preview tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape and key constraints well. The notable gap is lifecycle: no sibling applies an edit, and the description never says how a previewed change is confirmed or persisted, nor what happens on failure.

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

Parameters3/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for the most important ambiguity by explaining that 'sequential zero-based indices refer to the result of earlier actions' — crucial for index/exercise_index/set_index/to_index. It adds nothing about the ordering semantics of `actions` beyond that, and does not clarify weight_basis values (only the schema does).

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+resource pair ('Dry-run edit one saved stable workout_id in place'), clearly separating it from creation-oriented siblings like preview_workout_log. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so the agent must infer the distinction from the word 'saved'.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It states clear negative conditions ('Date/time migration, structural superset edits and complex-set internals are unsupported'), which tells the agent when not to reach for this tool. It never names an alternative tool to use for those excluded cases, nor does it explain how a previewed edit is ultimately committed.

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