hevy-mcp

update_routine_folder

Change a routine folder's title in Hevy. Provide the folder ID and new name to update your workout organization.

Instructions

Update an existing routine folder

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": {
      "folderId": "<folderId>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "update_routine_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	Yes
`folderId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely says 'update', which implies mutation, but does not state whether the operation is destructive, whether the folder must exist, what happens if it does not, or any error conditions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is efficient in wording. However, it is under-specified and omits crucial context, so the brevity is not combined with useful content. It is acceptable but not exemplary.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining the tool. It does not state how folderId is used, what title does, or what the agent can expect as a result. The description is too thin for reliable invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation of the parameters. The names 'folderId' and 'title' are somewhat self-explanatory (ID and new title), but the description does not confirm this mapping or provide any additional meaning beyond the schema's bare structure.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('existing routine folder'), distinguishing it from sibling create/delete/get tools. However, it does not specify which fields can be updated, relying on the schema for that detail, so it is clear but not highly specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_routine_folder or delete_routine_folder. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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