Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TrainingPeaks MCP

TrainingPeaks MCP

by lsantome
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

tp_add_workout_comment

Add a comment to a specific workout via its ID, allowing coaches or athletes to annotate training logs and collaborate through TrainingPeaks.

Instructions

Add a comment to a workout.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "workout_id": "<workout_id>",
      "comment": "<comment>"
    },
    "name": "tp_add_workout_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
athleteNoTarget athlete name or ID (coach accounts only). Omit to use your own profile.
commentYes
workout_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without revealing whether comments are appended, if permissions are required, or what error behavior occurs. This is insufficient for a mutating tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero fluff. It is appropriately concise for a simple operation, though it sacrifices detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a one-sentence description. It lacks essential context such as return values, permission requirements, and behavior on invalid inputs, making it inadequate for reliable agent invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'athlete' is described), and the tool description adds no parameter details. The agent is left to guess the format and purpose of 'workout_id' and 'comment' beyond their names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Add a comment to a workout' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like tp_add_note_comment and tp_get_workout_comments. It unambiguously states the operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing coach accounts for the 'athlete' parameter, nor any contrast with read-only tools like tp_get_workout_comments.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools