Log a completed workout to the Hevy API with title, times, and exercises. Requires confirmation='CONFIRM' to run, since this write tool is disabled by default.
Create a completed workout. Disabled by default and requires confirmation='CONFIRM'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workout | Yes | ||
| confirmation | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the tool is disabled by default and needs an exact confirmation token. It does not describe auth requirements or the response, but the gating disclosure is valuable beyond the annotations.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the critical gating constraint. No wasted words.
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 mutation tool with a rich nested input and existing annotations/output schema, the description covers the key operational hurdle (the confirmation gate). It omits success behavior and any distinction from create_routine, but the essential calling information is present.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry param meaning. It supplies the exact expected value for the 'confirmation' parameter, which the schema leaves as a bare string, but it adds nothing for the 'workout' parameter beyond the verb. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb (create) and resource (a completed workout), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling create_routine, which is the nearest alternative, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
The description gives a gating prerequisite ('disabled by default, requires confirmation=CONFIRM') but never states when to choose this over create_routine or when the workout record should be created versus a routine. Usage is implied rather than articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.