Retrieve current training plans with daily exercises, muscle groups, and weekly set, rep, and RIR targets; set active_only=false to include all plans.
Training plans: per day the exercises with their muscle and weekly set/rep/RIR targets. Only the current plan by default; active_only=false returns all plans.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| active_only | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the default scope is the current plan only, which is useful behavioral context. Beyond that it does not disclose ordering, whether history/archived plans are included, or anything an agent couldn't infer from the schema and output schema.
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?
Two short lines, zero filler, with the content summary first and the scoping behavior second. Every clause carries information not present in the structured fields.
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?
A read-only, single-optional-parameter tool with an output schema needs little prose, and the definition covers what the data represents and the default filter. The remaining gap is the unresolved overlap with get_weekly_training, which an agent would have to resolve by guessing.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does: it states the default (current plan only) and the effect of active_only=false (return all plans), which is exactly the meaning of the single boolean. It stops short of clarifying what 'current plan' means if multiple plans are marked active.
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 names the resource (training plans) and the shape of what comes back: per-day exercises with muscle groups plus weekly set/rep/RIR targets. That is specific enough to distinguish it from get_sessions, get_progress, and the plan-mutation siblings. It does not, however, explain how it differs from get_weekly_training, which sounds like it could return overlapping data.
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?
The second sentence is really a parameter explanation ('active_only=false returns all plans') rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no statement of when an agent should reach for this instead of get_weekly_training or get_exercise_history, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Usage is implied by the data description rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.