analyze_training_periodAnalyze training trends, volume, and patterns over a date range to identify shifts in performance and guide adjustments to your workout plan.
Comprehensive analysis of training trends, volume, and patterns over a date range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endDate | Yes | End date in YYYY-MM-DD format (required) | |
| startDate | Yes | Start date in YYYY-MM-DD format (required) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the analysis covers trends, volume, and patterns, but it does not disclose specifics such as aggregation method, data sources, or whether results are exhaustive, which would add value 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (two well-documented parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description provides adequate context by naming the analysis dimensions: trends, volume, and patterns. It could be more explicit about the return format, but the annotations and schema cover the remaining essential context.
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 100%, with both startDate and endDate already described with format and required status. The description only restates the date-range concept and does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 tool performs analysis of training trends, volume, and patterns over a date range, using a specific verb-noun structure. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_training_status, get_training_load, or get_progress_summary, which also relate to training analysis.
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 implies the tool is for date-range-based training analysis, giving some contextual guidance. It does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternative tools for narrower or different training queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.