coros-training-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete Workout

delete_workout

Removes a workout program from a Coros account using its workout ID so outdated or unwanted plans can be cleared from the coros-training-mcp server.

Instructions

Delete a workout program from the Coros account.

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": {
      "workout_id": "<workout_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_workout"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`workout_id`	Yes	The workout ID to delete (from list_workouts).

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

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it never states that the operation is irreversible, what happens to scheduled activities referencing the workout, or whether ownership/permissions are required. "From the Coros account" hints at remote mutation but discloses no consequences.

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 filler. It is efficient, though so terse that the brevity comes at the cost of missing context rather than being optimally balanced.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, unannotated mutation, the definition omits irreversibility, side effects on scheduled workouts, and error/not-found behavior. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the safety-relevant context is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents workout_id with the helpful hint to obtain it from list_workouts. The description adds nothing about the identifier format or validation, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete a workout program from the Coros account"), which is clear enough to act on. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as remove_scheduled_workout or update_workout, so an agent must infer that this deletes the stored program rather than a scheduled instance.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus remove_scheduled_workout, or on preconditions such as whether the workout must be unscheduled first. The agent is left to infer the workflow entirely.

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