Compare two training sessions to see per-movement changes in top weight, total reps, and volume. Use the previous session ID or default to the most recent session sharing a movement.
Compare a session with an earlier one, per movement: top weight, total reps and volume deltas. previous_training_id=0 picks the most recent earlier session that shares a movement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| training_id | Yes | ||
| previous_training_id | No |
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 full burden. It does not disclose authentication requirements, behavior when no earlier session exists, error behavior for invalid IDs, or whether the result is scoped to shared movements only. The per-movement delta output is mentioned, but the operational behavior is largely unspecified.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and output dimensions, followed by the one non-obvious parameter behavior. No filler.
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 two-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description explains the special meaning of previous_training_id=0 but leaves gaps around training_id semantics, missing previous session behavior, and per-movement scoping edge cases. Adequate but not 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%, so the description must compensate. It partially does: it explains that previous_training_id=0 means the most recent earlier session sharing a movement. But it does not explain the primary training_id parameter, nor what happens when previous_training_id is absent from the input or references a session with no shared movements. This offsets the baseline.
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 specific verb and resource: compare a session with an earlier one, per movement. It immediately names the output dimensions (top weight, total reps, volume deltas), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_session_detail or get_training_stats. It is clear, though it does not explicitly name a contrasting sibling tool.
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?
Usage is implied: this tool is for comparing two sessions, and previous_training_id=0 selects the most recent earlier matching session. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no mention of whether sessions must share movements, and no exclusion of related tools such as get_session_detail or get_training_stats.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.