Get a placeholder list of recent Hevy workouts to view your fitness activity.
Return a placeholder list of recent Hevy workouts
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": "hevy_recent_workouts"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is a 'placeholder list', which is a key behavioral trait, but it does not elaborate on what placeholder means or describe the exact output format. This is minimal but non-misleading.
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?
The description is a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. There is no wasteful wording, and it is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource.
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, the description should explain the return value in enough detail. It mentions a 'list of recent Hevy workouts' but says 'placeholder', which is ambiguous about whether the list contains fake data. This leaves some uncertainty, but the simplicity of the tool limits the impact.
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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. Per the calibration guidance, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters to describe, so the description needs to add no extra parameter information.
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?
The description uses a specific verb 'Return' and names the resource 'recent Hevy workouts', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'hevy_status'. The term 'placeholder' introduces some ambiguity about whether the data is real or mock, but the core purpose is understandable.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'hevy_status'. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.