Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
formtrace-mcp

formtrace-mcp

by arciomdavydau
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

List Hevy Routine Folders

list_hevy_routine_folders
Read-only

Retrieve a paginated list of Hevy routine folders to organize and browse routines. Set the page and page size (maximum 10) for each request.

Instructions

Get a page of Hevy routine folders; page_size is at most 10.

Tool call template

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": "list_hevy_routine_folders"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
page_sizeNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
sourceYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does 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. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact not present in schema or annotations: page_size is capped at 10. It does not say whether exceeding that cap errors or is clamped, nor how pagination termination is signaled.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence with the key constraint front-loaded and no filler. The semicolon splice is slightly compressed but not wasteful.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the read-only open-world nature is annotated. The remaining gap is pagination semantics (how to detect the last page, whether 'page' is 1-based), which matters for a listing tool but is a narrow omission.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for both parameters. It documents the page_size ceiling but says nothing about 'page' (indexing base, whether it is 1-based, what happens past the last page), leaving half the parameters unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a page of Hevy routine folders') plus the pagination shape, which is enough to distinguish it from list_hevy_routines in principle. It never explicitly contrasts with the sibling non-folder routine lister, so differentiation rests on the resource noun alone.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. An agent must infer that this is the folder-level listing versus list_hevy_routines from the name alone; no prerequisites or ordering advice is given.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools