Store FTP and body weight locally to calculate power zones and watts per kilogram (W/kg).
Store FTP and body weight locally (used for power zones and W/kg).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ftp_w | No | ||
| weight_kg | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, local operation. The description adds that values are stored locally and used for power zones and W/kg, but it does not clarify overwrite-vs-merge semantics or what happens when fields are null or omitted.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core action and purpose are stated immediately.
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 simple two-optional-parameter local setter with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the high-level intent. However, with both parameters nullable and not required, the agent still lacks guidance on partial updates and null clearing, which are important 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It identifies the concepts of FTP and body weight, but adds no detail on units, optionality, or the critical behavior of nullable fields (e.g., whether null clears a value).
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 concrete action (store) and the specific data stored (FTP and body weight), plus its downstream purpose (power zones and W/kg). It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from similarly named siblings, but the core purpose is clear.
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 parenthetical 'used for power zones and W/kg' implies when accurate FTP/weight values matter, but it never states when to call this tool versus alternatives or what prerequisites exist. Usage is only indirectly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.