Lists workouts in the feed, optionally within a date range, and flags whether each is confirmed as scheduled on the Apple Watch.
Workouts in the feed (optionally within [start_date, end_date]), each marked with whether HoodaRun has confirmed it's scheduled on the Watch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | No | ||
| start_date | No |
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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that returned workouts are marked with whether HoodaRun has confirmed Watch scheduling, but it does not mention read-only nature, permissions, pagination, ordering, or side effects.
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 with no redundant content. Every clause contributes either the resource, the optional filter, or the per-item scheduling marker.
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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a basic but incomplete picture. It explains the core return content and optional date range, but omits date format, ordering, pagination, defaults, and whether calling it has any side effects.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies both parameters by naming the optional [start_date, end_date] range, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but it does not specify date format, inclusivity, ordering, or default behavior when omitted.
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 identifies the resource as workouts in the feed and notes the optional date range and scheduled-on-Watch marker. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling list_activities or other listing tools, 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_activities or sync_status. It only states what is returned and that a date range is optional, leaving selection entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.