coros-training-mcp

by dholliday3

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Create Workout

create_workout

Build structured Coros workouts with step and interval targets, then sync them to the watch for guided execution.

Instructions

Create a new structured workout in the Coros account.

The workout appears in the Coros app under Workouts and can be synced to the watch for guided execution.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "steps": "<steps>"
    },
    "name": "create_workout"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Workout name (e.g. "Z2 Erholung 60min").
`steps`	Yes	List of workout steps. Each step is either a plain step or a repeat group. Plain step: - name (str): step label, e.g. "10:00 Einfahren" - duration_minutes (float): step duration in minutes - power_low_w (int): lower power target in watts - power_high_w (int): upper power target in watts Repeat group (for intervals): - repeat (int): number of repetitions - steps (list[dict]): sub-steps (same format as plain steps) Example: [ {"name": "Warm-up", "duration_minutes": 10, "power_low_w": 148, "power_high_w": 192}, {"repeat": 3, "steps": [ {"name": "Sweetspot", "duration_minutes": 10, "power_low_w": 265, "power_high_w": 285}, {"name": "Recovery", "duration_minutes": 3, "power_low_w": 150, "power_high_w": 175}, ]}, {"name": "Cool-down", "duration_minutes": 10, "power_low_w": 100, "power_high_w": 165}, ]
`sport_type`	No	Sport type ID. Default 2 = Indoor Cycling (Rollen). Use 200 for Road Bike (outdoor), 201 for Indoor Cycling (alt).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Oct 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does contribute real post-creation context — the workout lands in the app's Workouts section and can be pushed to the watch for guided execution — but it says nothing about auth requirements, validation failure modes, or whether repeated calls create duplicates.

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 short sentences with zero padding, and the core action is front-loaded in the first clause. Nothing in the text is redundant with the name or title.

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, so return values need no explanation, and the parameter schema is complete. But for a mutation tool with zero annotations, sitting in a cluster of four near-identical creators, the description should still say which one to pick and what state is required — those gaps are the remaining incompleteness.

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% and the steps parameter already carries a detailed format spec with a full nested example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes "structured workout" and adds no meaning beyond it, which is the baseline case for a fully documented schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Create a new structured workout in the Coros account"), which is far better than restating the title. However, it never distinguishes this generic creator from the three sport-specific siblings (create_run_workout, create_bike_workout, create_strength_workout), so the agent cannot tell from the description alone which creator applies.

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?

The second sentence describes an outcome (visible under Workouts, syncable to the watch) rather than when to call this tool. There is no mention of prerequisites (a connected/authenticated Coros account) and no routing guidance versus the specialized create_*_workout siblings, which is exactly the ambiguity an agent would need resolved here.

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