Retrieve recent training sessions newest first, filter by run, hybrid, or other, and see whether station details were logged. Use it to review recent workouts and identify missing notes.
Recent sessions, newest first. kind filters to 'run', 'hybrid' (HIIT/classes/strength) or 'other'. has_note shows whether station details were logged.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| kind | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already cover the safety profile, so the description's job is lighter; it does add ordering ('newest first') which is behavior the agent needs. However it introduces 'has_note' as if it were an available filter/output, which does not appear in the schema and could mislead an agent trying to use it. The 'days' window, which governs how far back 'recent' stretches, is never explained.
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 tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core behavior and the interesting filter semantics come first. The dangling 'has_note' clause is the one sentence that doesn't earn its place, since the field isn't in the schema.
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?
An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be described. Still, for a two-parameter listing tool with zero schema descriptions, the missing explanation of 'days' and the phantom 'has_note' reference leave gaps an agent would have to guess around.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does good work on 'kind' by spelling out the accepted values ('run', 'hybrid' for HIIT/classes/strength, 'other') since no enums exist in the schema. But 'days' is completely unaddressed, leaving the recency window's meaning and default (14) unexplained.
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?
States plainly that this returns recent sessions in reverse-chronological order, which is a specific enough resource+scope for an agent to recognize a listing tool. Sibling tools (get_progress, get_training_summary) are summaries rather than raw session listings, but the description doesn't explicitly draw that line.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus get_progress or get_training_summary, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the phrase 'recent sessions' alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.