Estimate one-rep max and track top-weight trends for each movement trained by scanning recent weighted sessions over a chosen day range. Use it to review strength progress per movement.
Per movement trained recently: estimated 1RM (Epley) from its best set, that set, and how the top weight moved across the window. Scans up to the 10 most recent weighted sessions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the safety/behavior burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: the Epley formula, that it scans only the 10 most recent weighted sessions, and that it reports a trend across a window. That is useful limitation context, but it omits auth/permission needs and how the internal 10-session cap interacts with the caller-supplied window.
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 dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the output content leads and the scan limitation follows. Minor cost is the fragment-style opening, but it is efficient.
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 tool with no output schema or annotations and two fully undocumented parameters, the description does a decent job of describing what comes back but leaves the parameter meanings and the window/scan-cap relationship underspecified.
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 params, so the description must compensate. It hints at a time window ('recently', 'across the window') and a session cap, but never defines what days or limit control, and the stated '10 most recent sessions' does not map cleanly onto limit's default of 15.
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 computation: per movement, estimated 1RM via Epley from the best set, that set, and the top-weight trend. It is clearly a strength-trending read, distinguishable from generic siblings like get_training_stats or get_exercise_history, though it never names them explicitly.
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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The agent is left to infer from context whether this beats get_training_stats, get_muscle_balance, or get_exercise_history for a strength question.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.