Retrieve athlete thresholds, HR/pace zones, FTP, weight, and sport settings to establish baselines needed for interpreting training data and building accurate workouts.
Get athlete profile: thresholds, HR/pace zones, FTP, weight, sport settings.
Call this first in a coaching session. Zone boundaries are needed to interpret every other number, and to write workouts with correct targets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that this is a retrieval-style call and adds useful context about zone boundaries being prerequisites, but it does not describe return shape, authentication needs, or edge-case behavior. This is adequate for a simple getter but not rich.
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?
Two tight, front-loaded sentences: the first enumerates the payload, the second gives actionable sequencing rationale. No filler or repetition.
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?
For a zero-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers what is returned and when to call it. It lacks an explicit return-format statement, and there is no output schema or annotations to fill that gap, but the field list and sequencing guidance are sufficient for correct invocation.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing the description needs to add about arguments. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies.
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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('athlete profile') and lists distinctive contents: thresholds, HR/pace zones, FTP, weight, sport settings. This clearly distinguishes it from activity/workout-focused siblings.
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?
It explicitly instructs to call this first in a coaching session and explains why zone boundaries are needed to interpret other numbers and write workouts. This gives strong contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.