Estimate your one-rep max from weight and reps using Brzycki or Epley formulas. Get training loads at 100%, 90%, 85%, 80%, and 75%.
Estimate 1-rep max (1RM) from weight and reps. Brzycki or Epley formula. Returns training loads at 100%/90%/85%/80%/75%.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reps | Yes | ||
| weight | Yes | ||
| formula | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the formula options but omits important details like the valid range for reps, handling of edge cases (e.g., reps = 0 or > 10), unit expectations (kg vs lbs), and the exact return format. This leaves the agent guessing about constraints and assumptions.
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 concise sentences deliver the purpose, key options, and expected output with no filler. The essential information is front-loaded, and every clause contributes value.
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?
For a simple calculator with no output schema, the description covers the core operation but lacks crucial context: valid input ranges, unit assumptions, and how the training loads are presented (e.g., as a list, object, or formatted string). An agent could invoke it correctly but might misinterpret outputs without additional clarification.
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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only mentions 'weight' and 'reps' without clarifying units, types, or constraints, and the optional 'formula' parameter is only listed in the enum without any guidance on when to choose which. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the raw schema.
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 a specific verb ('Estimate'), a precise resource ('1-rep max'), and the input (weight and reps). It also names the formula options and the output (training loads at specific percentages), making it clearly distinct from sibling calculators like BMI or BMR.
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 description implies a weightlifting context but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling calculators. It does not state any exclusions or prerequisites, such as valid rep ranges or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.