duplicate_workoutsDuplicate selected workouts from an early week into later weeks of a training plan to repeat a block, e.g. copy week 1 to weeks 2–4.
Copy workouts inside a training plan to later weeks of the plan, e.g. repeat week 1 for weeks 2–4.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | ||
| copies | Yes | ||
| weeks_between | No | Default 1. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| created | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so the tool is known to be a mutation. The description adds that it copies workouts to later weeks, but does not disclose side effects such as whether original workouts are preserved, potential conflicts, or permission requirements. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the example.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core action and provides a clear example. There is no filler, making it efficient and scannable.
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 values are not the description's responsibility. However, the description omits important operational details such as whether 'ids' must belong to the same plan, constraints on 'copies' relative to plan length, and what happens if weeks overlap. The example gives some context but overall leaves key behavioral questions unanswered.
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 only 33% (only weeks_between has a description). The tool description does not explain the meaning of 'ids' or 'copies'. The example ('repeat week 1 for weeks 2–4') hints at the relationship but is not explicit about how each parameter maps. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 states a specific verb ('copy'), resource ('workouts inside a training plan'), and qualifier ('to later weeks'), with a concrete example. This clearly distinguishes it from generic tools like update_workout or create_workouts.
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 usage for repeating workouts across weeks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., duplicate_events for events, or manually creating workouts). No exclusions or alternative routing is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.