coros-training-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Authenticate Coros

authenticate_coros

Authenticates with the Coros Training Hub API using account credentials and stores the access token for subsequent training data and workout requests.

Instructions

Authenticate with the Coros Training Hub API and store the access token.

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": {
      "email": "<email>",
      "password": "<password>"
    },
    "name": "authenticate_coros"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes	Coros account email address.
`region`	No	"eu" (default) or "us". EU users must use "eu" — tokens are region-bound (EU tokens only work on teameuapi.coros.com).	eu
`password`	Yes	Coros account password (plain text — hashed with MD5 before sending).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Oct 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the meaningful side effect (the access token is stored), which is valuable. But it omits token lifetime/expiry, whether re-authenticating overwrites an existing token, failure behavior on bad credentials, and any rate limiting.

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 no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why other dimensions are thin.

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?

An output schema exists and parameters are fully documented, so return values need not be explained. Still, for an auth tool with multiple sibling auth tools and no annotations, the description should cover token lifecycle and when to re-authenticate — it does neither.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, including detailed region binding and MD5 hashing notes, so the schema does all the work. The description adds nothing about the email/password/region semantics beyond what is already documented, matching the baseline 3 for high coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (authenticate) and resource (Coros Training Hub API) plus the side effect of storing the token. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling authenticate_coros_mobile or explain how it relates to check_coros_auth, so an agent cannot tell which auth path to pick from the description alone.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., call check_coros_auth first, or skip if a token already exists), and no mention of the alternatives authenticate_coros_mobile or check_coros_auth. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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