get_exerciseRetrieve a single exercise by its v2 ID, including instructions, tips, target muscles, equipment, sets/reps guidance, calories, and media links; optionally set the language.
One exercise by v2 id: instructions, tips, muscles, equipment, sets/reps guidance, calories and signed media links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | v2 exercise id, e.g. "ex_GE5XEP" | |
| lang | No | Language for names, instructions and tips (default en) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-content context, including signed media links, but does not cover not-found behavior, auth/signing requirements, or rate limits.
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?
It is a single compact line, front-loaded with the singular lookup scope and followed by the relevant return fields. There is no filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned content, and the input schema fully documents both parameters. It is nearly complete for a simple read-only lookup, though failure behavior for an invalid id is not described.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that the id is a v2 id but adds no extra semantics for the lang parameter beyond what the schema provides.
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 clearly identifies a single-exercise lookup by v2 id and enumerates the returned data. This singular, id-based scope separates it from the search/list siblings, though no sibling is explicitly named.
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 phrase 'by v2 id' implies the tool is used once an exercise id is already known, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives such as search_exercises or map_v1_exercise.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.