Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCPacer

MCPacer

by wernerpe
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

remove_plan_run

Remove a scheduled workout from a training plan week by specifying the plan, week number, and day of the week.

Instructions

    Remove a workout from a week.

    Args:
        plan_id: The plan ID.
        week_number: Which week.
        day_of_week: Day name (e.g. "Thursday").

    Returns:
        Confirmation message.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "plan_id": "<plan_id>",
      "week_number": "<week_number>",
      "day_of_week": "<day_of_week>"
    },
    "name": "remove_plan_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
plan_idYes
day_of_weekYes
week_numberYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It states it returns a confirmation message but does not mention that this is a destructive operation, error states, or any side effects like cascading deletions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise, with two sentences for purpose and args/returns. Every word adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers basic usage. However, it omits error handling (e.g., if the workout doesn't exist) and any prerequisites, which are needed for complete guidance.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value: it explains plan_id as 'The plan ID', week_number as 'Which week', and day_of_week with an example. The schema titles already imply these, so the addition is marginal.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Remove a workout from a week' which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like add_plan_run and update_plan_run. However, it could explicitly mention the training plan context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like update_plan_run. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the run must exist) or exclude conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools