hevy-mcp

delete_routine

Delete a Hevy workout routine by providing its routine ID. Removes the specified routine from your account to keep your workout tracker organized.

Instructions

Delete a routine by its routineId

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "routineId": "<routineId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_routine"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`routineId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the routine is deleted but does not mention irreversibility, potential side effects (e.g., cascade deletion of associated exercises), or required permissions. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no filler or redundant information, making it efficient and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core action. However, it lacks behavioral context such as permanence, error handling, or impacts on related data. Given the absence of annotations, more detail would be expected, but the current description is minimally adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero description coverage for 'routineId', and the description merely repeats the parameter name without adding meaning. It does not explain what the routineId represents, how to obtain it, or any format constraints. Thus, the description adds no value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('routine'), and specifies the identifying parameter ('routineId'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_routine_folder or delete_workout, which target different resources.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or contexts. The description only states the action without explaining when it is appropriate or what other tools might be used instead (e.g., update_routine, get_routines).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.