Get current training thresholds (FTP, run/swim, weight, max/resting heart rate) from Pushing Limits Club data to monitor your fitness baselines.
Current thresholds: ftp, threshold_run, threshold_swim, weight, max_hr, resting_hr, updated_at.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosureblatt. It only lists fields and implies current state; it does not state that this is a read-only operation, describe the response shape, or mention any side effects or requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and following with a useful field list. It misses a main verb and reads as a fragment, which prevents a top score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter getter, the field list provides the core information an agent needs. However, with no output schema or annotations, the description leaves response format and read semantics somewhat ambiguous, making it adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema with full coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter semantics are entirely moot here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the resource as current thresholds and enumerates the fields exposed, making the tool's purpose clear. It lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from sibling tools, so it stops short of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus pl_status, pl_get_pmc, pl_get_workouts, or pl_get_week. The field list implies it is for reading threshold values, but no usage context or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.