Hevy MCP Pro

update_routine

Replace an existing workout routine by ID with updated title, notes, and exercises. Modify routine details directly without creating a duplicate.

Instructions

Replace an existing routine by ID. Note: the API does NOT accept folder_id on update — folder moves happen via the mobile app only.

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": {
      "routineId": "<routineId>",
      "routine": "<routine>"
    },
    "name": "update_routine"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`routine`	Yes
`routineId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: folder_id is not accepted on update. 'Replace' also clarifies that it is a full replacement, not a partial update. However, it does not mention return values, error behavior, or auth requirements.

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?

Two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then providing a critical constraint. No wasted words, perfectly concise.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the primary action and the folder_id limitation. However, with no output schema and a complex nested input, it would benefit from stating what the API returns (e.g., updated routine) or any prerequisites (e.g., routine must exist). It is missing those but otherwise adequate for a straightforward update tool.

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 clarifies routineId ('by ID') but provides no explanation of the complex 'routine' parameter or its nested structure. The schema is exhaustive but lacks descriptions, leaving the agent without semantic guidance for the payload.

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 'Replace an existing routine by ID', which is a specific verb+resource+method. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_routine and get_routine by indicating the update/replace action.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for the tool and explicitly notes that folder moves cannot be done via API ('folder moves happen via the mobile app only'), providing a specific exclusion. It does not mention alternatives by name, but the tool name and context make the primary usage clear.

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