Commit one previewed goal, start, activity-link, or result change. Call only after the user explicitly confirms the exact preview from preview_goal_result_change. The server rejects stale data and returns the new authoritative editing state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| changeId | Yes | Preview id returned by preview_goal_result_change. Commit only after the user confirms that exact preview. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the server rejects stale data and that the operation returns the new authoritative editing state. While it does not detail side effects or reversibility, it covers key behavioral aspects beyond what the schema provides.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then a usage caution, then server behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or wasted words.
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 simple one-parameter commit tool with no output schema, the description explains the purpose, preconditions, and response nature. It could specify the response fields in more detail, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly in the context of the preview workflow.
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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter changeId, including a description that already states it is a preview ID and must be committed only after user confirmation. The main description adds little beyond restating this, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 the specific verb 'Commit' and clearly identifies the resource as a previewed goal, start, activity-link, or result change. It distinguishes this tool from its sibling preview_goal_result_change and commit_profile_section_change by specifying both the action and the target.
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 explicitly says 'Call only after the user explicitly confirms the exact preview from preview_goal_result_change', providing a clear precondition. It also mentions that 'The server rejects stale data', which informs the agent about the need for fresh preview IDs and when not to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: plan events vs note events, goals/results vs profile sections, preview vs commit, history vs current sections. The boundaries are clearly defined in descriptions, so an agent can reliably select the right tool for a given task.
All tool names follow a predictable verb_noun snake_case pattern with consistent verbs (create, delete, get, preview, commit, read, restore, save). The use of 'get' for data retrieval and 'read' for profile-specific history/sections is internally consistent.
At 20 tools, the set is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the complexity of the coaching domain justifies the count. The preview/commit pairs and distinct resource types (goals, profile, plan, notes) each earn their place, though the set could be streamlined by merging some read tools.
The tool surface covers the main coaching workflows: reading athlete state, managing training plan and notes, editing goals/results, maintaining profile memory, and saving strategy. Minor gaps exist around explicit creation/deletion of goals and profile sections, which are not clearly supported outside the preview/commit flow.
