Read a profile's workout routine templates to review names, exercise counts, planned weekdays, rotation order, and last completion dates for workout planning.
The profile's routines (workout templates): id, name, emoji, number of exercises, the weekdays they are planned on, their place in the rotation, and when each was last done.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds value by enumerating the returned fields (id, name, emoji, exercise count, weekdays, rotation position, last-done), which is meaningful in the absence of an output schema, but says nothing about ordering, completeness, or whether the set is paginated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then the payload. It is dense but each listed field earns its place given there is no output schema; only the run-on enumeration keeps it from being maximally crisp.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, listing the returned fields is the right compensation and largely covers the return shape for a zero-param read. It stops short of stating ordering, cardinality, or freshness guarantees, so it is not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond confirming this is a parameterless full read.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific resource (the profile's routines) and parenthetically defines them as workout templates, distinguishing it from the singular read_routine sibling by implication. The enumerated field list makes the scope concrete, though it never explicitly says 'list all' or names the sibling it contrasts with.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite context, and no routing to alternatives like read_routine (single) or read_week_plan. The agent must infer the selection criteria from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.