Skip to main content
Glama

get-workout-count

Retrieve the total number of workouts from your Hevy fitness account for pagination or statistical analysis.

Instructions

Get the total number of workouts on the account. Useful for pagination or statistics.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Executes the tool logic: checks for hevyClient, calls getWorkoutCount(), extracts count, returns JSON response.
    withErrorHandling(async () => {
    	if (!hevyClient) {
    		throw new Error(
    			"API client not initialized. Please provide HEVY_API_KEY.",
    		);
    	}
    	const data = await hevyClient.getWorkoutCount();
    	// Use type assertion to access count property
    	const count = data
    		? (data as { workoutCount?: number }).workoutCount || 0
    		: 0;
    	return createJsonResponse({ count });
    }, "get-workout-count"),
  • Registers the get-workout-count tool with the MCP server inside registerWorkoutTools function, including name, description, input schema (none), and handler.
    // Get workout count
    server.tool(
    	"get-workout-count",
    	"Get the total number of workouts on the account. Useful for pagination or statistics.",
    	{},
    	withErrorHandling(async () => {
    		if (!hevyClient) {
    			throw new Error(
    				"API client not initialized. Please provide HEVY_API_KEY.",
    			);
    		}
    		const data = await hevyClient.getWorkoutCount();
    		// Use type assertion to access count property
    		const count = data
    			? (data as { workoutCount?: number }).workoutCount || 0
    			: 0;
    		return createJsonResponse({ count });
    	}, "get-workout-count"),
    );
  • Zod input schema for the tool: empty object indicating no input parameters required.
    {},
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is 'useful for pagination or statistics,' which hints at read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly state whether it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format is. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds practical context. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains the purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication, rate limits, or return format. With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at what's returned (e.g., a number), but it doesn't, leaving the agent to infer.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate. It doesn't reach 5 because it doesn't explicitly state 'no parameters required,' but this is minor given the context.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the total number of workouts on the account.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('total number of workouts'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-workouts' (which likely returns workout details rather than just a count), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Useful for pagination or statistics.' This gives practical guidance on when to use the tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'get-workouts' for detailed data), so it falls short of a perfect score.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/chrisdoc/hevy-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server