Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Trainerize MCP Server

Trainerize MCP Server

by cotlet-connect
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

trainerize_status

Verify your Cotlet.dev account, available credits, and Trainerize connection are ready before running fitness coaching tasks.

Instructions

Check that your Cotlet.dev account and Trainerize are ready: account, credits and Trainerize connection.

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": "trainerize_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the three things inspected (account, credits, connection), which implies a non-mutating probe, but it never states that the call is read-only, has no side effects, or what the result looks like in the absence of an output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence with the purpose stated before the enumerated checks. Minor redundancy: "account" appears both in the main clause and in the list, which reads slightly awkwardly but costs little.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what a successful versus failed check looks like. It lists the three checked items, which is useful, but leaves the return shape and any remediation guidance unspecified for a diagnostic tool whose whole value is its report.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level meaning is missing.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Check") with a named resource set: Cotlet.dev account, credits, and Trainerize connection. That clearly distinguishes it from the sibling interaction tools (open/click/type/read/close), which operate on a page rather than reporting readiness.

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?

"Check that ... are ready" implies a pre-flight/diagnostic use before invoking the other Trainerize tools, but this is only implied. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of failure handling, and no named alternative for troubleshooting.

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