find_similar_exercisesFind exercises that share a given exercise’s movement pattern, muscles, and equipment, ranked by similarity score.
Exercises most similar to the given one (same pattern, muscles and equipment), ranked by score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | v2 exercise id, e.g. "ex_GE5XEP" | |
| lang | No | Language for names, instructions and tips (default en) | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 10, plan caps apply) | |
| model | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only, non-open-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing the similarity dimensions (pattern, muscles, equipment) and that results are ranked by score, though it does not discuss limits, plan caps, or output shape.
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?
A single tight sentence with no filler. The core purpose and ranking behavior are front-loaded, and every clause contributes useful information.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple read-only lookup, but with no output schema and a very similar sibling tool, it leaves the agent without enough guidance on result shape or when to prefer this over find_exercise_alternatives.
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 75%, so most parameters are documented in the schema. The description only refers to the given exercise and does not clarify the roles of lang, limit, or model beyond what is already in the structured fields, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 resource and operation: exercises most similar to a given exercise, with matching criteria and ranking. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling find_exercise_alternatives.
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 usage context is implied by the similarity criteria, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus find_exercise_alternatives or search_exercises. An agent must infer the choice from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.