openGym MCP Bridge

recover_workout_draft

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads upstream records to check a pending workout submission after a timeout or restart. Marks the local journal committed only when the stable ID and full content match.

Instructions

Read upstream to investigate pending submission after timeout/restart. Can mark local journal committed only on stable ID and full-content match. Never writes upstream; missing/mismatching records remain locked.

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": "recover_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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, yet the description says the tool 'Can mark local journal committed,' which is a local state mutation. Although it also clarifies 'Never writes upstream' and describes failure handling, this conflicts with the read-only annotation.

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 purpose and with no filler. The telegraphic style is efficient.

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?

It covers the recovery scenario and the commit guardrails, but omits what the tool returns and does not map the required draft_id parameter to the 'stable ID' check. With no output schema, some return behavior should be stated.

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 coverage is 0% and the sole parameter draft_id has no schema description. The description refers to stable ID matching but never defines draft_id, its format, or where to obtain it.

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 operation: reading upstream state to investigate a pending submission after a timeout or restart, and conditionally committing a local journal. It is more specific than the tool name, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as get_workout_draft or list_workout_drafts.

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 clearly states the triggering scenario (timeout/restart) and the conditions under which local commit is allowed, and notes that mismatches remain locked. It does not name an alternative tool for ordinary draft reads.

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