get_recent_workoutsRetrieve recent workout summaries with distance, duration, pace, and heart rate data. Specify a limit and choose imperial units to get the activity history you need.
Get recent workouts with formatted distance, duration, pace, and HR.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| imperial | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'formatted' output but doesn't disclose what formatting means (e.g., units, rounding), whether the data is read-only, or any rate limits or pagination behavior. For a read tool with no annotations, this is a notable gap.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the key output fields. It earns its place with no filler, though it could add a bit more detail without becoming bloated.
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 has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify the meaning of 'formatted' and the two parameters. It's adequate for a simple read tool but leaves some ambiguity about units and defaults.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'formatted' distance and pace, which hints at the 'imperial' parameter, and 'recent' hints at 'limit', but it doesn't explicitly explain either parameter's meaning or defaults. The description adds some context but not enough to fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage.
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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('recent workouts') and lists the formatted fields (distance, duration, pace, HR), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_workout_details or get_recent_activities_summary. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the resource and field list make the purpose clear.
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 usage for retrieving recent workout data with formatting options, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_recent_activities_summary or get_workout_details. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.