Retrieve training readiness score and contributing factors for a specific date, helping triathlon coaches and athletes plan training based on recovery.
Get training readiness data with curated metrics
Returns training readiness score and contributing factors.
Args: date: Date in YYYY-MM-DD format
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The verb 'Get' implies non-destructive behavior, but this is not explicitly stated.
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?
The description is very concise, consisting of two short sentences. It immediately states the purpose and mentions the return value, with no extraneous information.
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?
The description mentions the return value (score and contributing factors) but does not elaborate on the structure or meaning. Given the single parameter and straightforward nature of the data, this is adequate but leaves some ambiguity about what 'training readiness' specifically includes.
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 description explicitly states the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and implies that the parameter represents the date for which readiness data is requested. This provides sufficient meaning beyond the bare schema definition.
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 states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'training readiness data', and mentions that it returns a score and contributing factors. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_morning_training_readiness' or 'get_training_status', which could lead to ambiguity.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any specific use cases or scenarios where this endpoint is preferred over similar readiness or training tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.