Compute daily load, acute:chronic ratio, and fitness/fatigue/form to gauge injury risk and adjust training.
Training load: daily load, Garmin-style acute load and acute:chronic ratio (Garmin's optimal band is 0.8-1.5), fitness/fatigue/form (CTL/ATL/TSB), a status label, weekly totals (sessions, hours, distance, load, active kcal, minutes per HR zone and power zone), and load by sport.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| days | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine interpretive context — the 0.8-1.5 ACWR band and the CTL/ATL/TSB naming — but says nothing about how the window is computed, what the default 42-day period means, or how open-world data freshness affects results.
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?
It is a single dense sentence that front-loads the resource name, which is good, but it degenerates into a comma-separated inventory of output fields. The list is informative yet poorly structured — a short lead sentence plus a grouped breakdown would be easier to parse.
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?
With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so thoroughly by naming every metric family returned. But for a tool with two unlabeled parameters and overlapping siblings, missing window/date semantics and usage guidance leave it only partially complete.
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% for both parameters: 'end' has no type clarity beyond anyOf string/null and no format hint, and 'days' is described nowhere. The description mentions 'daily load' and 'weekly totals' but never explains that 'days' sets the lookback window or what format 'end' expects (ISO date?), so the parameters are effectively undocumented.
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 clearly identifies the resource — training load metrics — and enumerates the specific contents (acute load, ACWR, CTL/ATL/TSB, weekly totals, zone breakdowns). However, it never contrasts itself with overlapping siblings such as load_focus, fitness_profile, or timeseries, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided. With siblings like load_focus, fitness_profile, and timeseries covering adjacent ground, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.