get_training_readinessRetrieve a training readiness score to determine how prepared your body is for training on a specific date and plan your workout intensity accordingly.
Get training readiness score indicating how prepared your body is for training.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Date in YYYY-MM-DD format. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context such as data source, refresh behavior, or what the score represents beyond a simple interpretation. It does not contradict 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 sentence that is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition.
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 tool is simple with one optional parameter and read-only annotations, but the description does not clarify what the returned score looks like (e.g., range, type, interpretation). Given there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the return value would improve completeness.
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 input schema fully covers the single optional 'date' parameter with pattern and description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('training readiness score') along with its meaning ('how prepared your body is for training'). This is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_training_status' or 'get_training_load'.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It only states the purpose, leaving the agent to infer usage from the metric name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.