Fetch a client's workouts, optionally filtered by year and month, to review training history and manage fitness plans.
Busca treinos de um cliente
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | Ano (opcional) | |
| month | No | Mês (1-12, opcional) | |
| clientId | No | ID do cliente (opcional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, what happens with missing parameters, or any constraints like rate limits. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's function.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should do more to explain the return format, pagination, or filtering behavior. It is incomplete for a tool with three optional parameters and no structured behavioral hints.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (year, month, clientId) with their types and optional status. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?
The description states a clear verb (busca) and resource (treinos de um cliente), so the purpose is understandable. However, it's very terse and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like get_activities, which might also return workout-like data. It leaves ambiguity about what a 'treino' includes versus an 'activity'.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_activities or get_activity_schedule. No context about prerequisites, such as whether clientId is necessary for a meaningful search, is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.