Hevy MCP Pro

compare_workouts

Analyze two workouts side-by-side with per-workout summaries, volume and set deltas, and an exercise-by-exercise diff.

Instructions

Compare two workouts side-by-side. Returns per-workout summaries, top-level deltas (volume, sets, exercise count), and a per-exercise diff sorted alphabetically by exercise title.

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": {
      "workoutIdA": "<workoutIdA>",
      "workoutIdB": "<workoutIdB>"
    },
    "name": "compare_workouts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`workoutIdA`	Yes
`workoutIdB`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the return content (summaries, deltas, per-exercise diff) and the sorting order, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or address error cases, but the description's clarity on output structure is a strong disclosure.

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?

The description is concise, with two sentences front-loading the purpose followed by output details. Every clause adds value, with no fluff, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (summaries, deltas, diff) and ordering. It lacks guidance on edge cases or parameter validation, but for a comparison tool with clear inputs, it is reasonably complete.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the parameters. Though the parameter names workoutIdA and workoutIdB are self-explanatory in the schema, the description adds no direct meaning about them, failing to meet the requirement for low coverage to compensate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool compares two workouts side-by-side, using the specific verb 'compare' and naming the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_workout or list_workouts, which handle single workouts rather than comparisons.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the tool should be used when comparing two workouts, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name any alternatives. No exclusions or direct references to sibling tools are provided, so the usage context is only implied.

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