Retrieve the athlete's parsing conventions for converting coach free-text workouts into structured steps. Read these rules before building steps to ensure workouts follow the correct format.
The athlete's conventions for turning coach text into steps. ALWAYS read before building steps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the behavioral burden; it signals a prerequisite read operation and implies a cheap, side-effect-free lookup. It does not state the freshness or volatility of the conventions, permissions needed, or what the rules look like beyond the output schema's own documentation.
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 short sentences with zero filler, and the mandatory-use directive is front-loaded immediately after the resource definition. Every word earns its place.
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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema already documenting return values, the definition covers what it returns and when to call it. The remaining gap is small: no mention of whether the conventions are athlete-specific at call time and no indication of what to do if the call fails.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add; the baseline of 4 for 0-param tools would apply. The description does not compensate with any note about implicit context (e.g. which athlete's conventions are returned), so it sits at a neutral minimum.
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 identifies a specific resource — the athlete's conventions for converting coach text into structured steps — which clearly separates it from siblings like get_zones or get_examples. It lacks an explicit verb (e.g. 'retrieves'), leaving the read action implied mainly by the tool name.
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?
'ALWAYS read before building steps' is a direct, unambiguous when-to-use instruction that ties this tool to the step-building workflow (preview_structured_workout / save_structured_workout). It does not name those siblings explicitly or describe any case where skipping it is acceptable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.