Hevy MCP Pro

create_routine

Create workout routines with exercises, sets, and rest times; optionally assign to folders for structured training.

Instructions

Create a new routine. Routines may optionally live inside a folder via folder_id. Note: the Hevy mobile app does not render rep_range (it uses an undocumented input_modifier field).

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": {
      "routine": "<routine>"
    },
    "name": "create_routine"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`routine`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does add a useful caveat about the Hevy app not rendering rep_range, and notes the optional folder behavior. However, it omits other behaviors like return value, idempotency, or permission requirements, leaving a partial picture.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose; the second provides a critical compatibility note. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This tool has a complex nested schema, no annotations, and no output schema. The description only touches on folder_id and rep_range, leaving the agent without details on expected return values, error cases, or how to structure a valid routine beyond schema constraints. It is incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 must compensate. It only explains folder_id and the rep_range caveat, but does not clarify the routine object structure, required fields, or typical usage for other nested parameters. The schema provides types, but the agent still lacks guidance on parameter intent.

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 opens with 'Create a new routine,' a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this from siblings like update_routine and list_routines. It also adds the optional folder context, reinforcing the scope.

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 usage for creating new routines, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., update_routine) or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The folder mention offers limited context, but no exclusions or alternative references are present.

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