coros-training-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List Activities

list_activities

Retrieve Coros activities for a specified date range, with pagination controls, to review workouts and training history.

Instructions

List Coros activities for a date range.

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": {
      "start_day": "<start_day>",
      "end_day": "<end_day>"
    },
    "name": "list_activities"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number (default 1).
`size`	No	Results per page (default 30, max 100).
`end_day`	Yes	End date in YYYYMMDD format.
`start_day`	Yes	Start date in YYYYMMDD format.

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 bears the full burden and discloses little: it does not say the operation is a read, whether results are paginated or ordered, or how large a date span is tolerable. The only behavioral fact conveyed is the date-range filter, which the schema already implies.

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 waste. Its brevity is achieved by omission rather than by tight phrasing of necessary detail, but structurally there is nothing to trim.

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?

The output schema covers return values and the input schema covers all four parameters, so the description need not repeat those. It is still thin for a tool in a crowded lister family: no ordering, pagination loop guidance, or distinction from planned activities.

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%, with page, size, start_day and end_day all documented including formats and defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the date-range framing already present in the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Coros activities') plus the scoping dimension (date range), so the core action is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from sibling listers such as list_planned_activities or get_activity_detail, leaving an agent to infer that this covers completed activities only.

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 guidance on when to choose this over list_planned_activities or get_activity_detail, and no mention of prerequisites despite the Coros-family auth tools in the sibling set. The date range is the only contextual hint.

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