AI Personalized Workout Planning via MCP Connector

An AI agent may plan extremely well, yet it still cannot update Notion, read GitHub issues, or retrieve reports from Google Drive without the right connection. By combining Hermes Agent with MCP, users can turn a conversation into a practical workflow while clearly controlling which tools and permissions the agent may use. If you are not yet familiar with Hermes memory and its ability to create skills, our guide to what Hermes Agent is provides the necessary foundation. This article focuses on how MCP extends Hermes beyond the terminal so it can work with everyday data and services. What does MCP add to Hermes Agent? MCP is a connection standard between an AI application and a server that provides tools or data. It can be understood as an adapter layer: Hermes remains the agent responsible for understanding the goal and choosing the next step, while each MCP server contributes specific actions such as searching Notion, reading a pull request, creating an issue, or querying files. According to the Hermes Agent MCP documentation, Hermes supports local servers over stdio and remote servers over HTTP. At startup or after a configuration reload, Hermes discovers the tools exposed by each server and registers them in its normal tool system. Users therefore do not need to write a native Hermes tool for every service that already has a suitable MCP server. MCP does not automatically make a workflow safe. A server may expose tools that read, write, create, and delete data. Hermes supports filtering per server, allowing users to enable only the operations they need instead of exposing every capability to the model. How to connect MCP without granting excessive access The standard Hermes installation already includes MCP support. Users can open the picker with hermes mcp, view the catalog with hermes mcp catalog, and test a connection with hermes mcp test. Nous Research reviews entries before they enter the Hermes catalog, but its documentation still recommends reading the manifest, source repository, and installation commands before use. For a server outside the catalog, users can add an HTTP connection or a stdio command to config.yaml. After completing OAuth or configuring the required environment variables, reload MCP and ask Hermes to list the available tools. This simple check reveals servers that failed to connect or tools that were accidentally filtered out. Begin with read access The safest setup is to connect one server, enable read only tools, and test with nonsensitive data. Add create or update permissions only after results are stable. Deletion, sharing changes, and outbound publishing should require human approval. Notion initially needs only search and page reading access. GitHub can be limited to reading repositories, issues, and pull requests. Google Drive access should be limited by folder, account, and required OAuth scope. Three practical workflows with Notion, GitHub, and Google Drive Turn Notion into a knowledge center The official Notion MCP allows an agent to search, read, and update workspace content under the authenticated user's permissions. A useful workflow lets Hermes collect meeting notes, find relevant decisions, and prepare a summary on the project page. Hermes can create a draft first so a user can review it before updating status or assigning work. Notion MCP uses user based OAuth, so it does not fit every unattended process. For scheduled automation, verify how the server maintains authentication and avoid designing a workflow around operations that OAuth cannot support in a headless environment. Coordinate development work through GitHub The GitHub MCP Server is provided and maintained by GitHub, allowing AI tools to work with software development data according to account permissions. Hermes can read new issues, compare them with repository changes, and draft a progress report. It can then prepare issue text or release notes while waiting for an owner to approve the write operation. This workflow works best with clear criteria. For example, Hermes can summarize only pull requests merged during the previous seven days, group them by label, and connect each change to its related issue. A second MCP server can then send the result to Notion as a weekly report. Summarize files and reports from Google Drive With a compatible Google Workspace MCP server, Hermes can find Drive files, read permitted content, and feed data into a reporting process. For example, the agent can locate a sales report in a fixed folder, extract selected metrics, and create a summary for Notion or a GitHub issue. Google collects its official MCP projects in the Google MCP repository, including a path for Google Workspace integration. However, several community Drive servers have different maintenance histories. Check the source, update history, and OAuth scopes of the specific server instead of installing one based only on its name. Combine multiple MCP servers into a controlled workflow A complete workflow can begin in GitHub, use Drive as a data source, and finish in Notion. Hermes reads an issue labeled for reporting, finds the corresponding spreadsheet in Drive, produces a summary, and updates the project page. Each stage uses a different MCP tool group, while Hermes plans the sequence and passes results between stages. Do not enable parallel execution merely because a server supports it. Hermes documentation allows servers to declare parallel tool support but warns that operations reading and writing shared state can conflict. Independent read operations may run together, while Notion updates, issue creation, and file changes should remain sequential. Important: An MCP server is software that can run commands and receive credentials. Install only trusted servers, keep tokens out of prompts, filter dangerous tools, and require approval for deleting, sharing, or publishing data. How should you start the first workflow? Do not connect Notion, GitHub, and Google Drive on the same day and immediately assign a critical process. Choose one input, one output, and one completion criterion that is easy to verify. A first workflow could read closed GitHub issues and create a draft report in Notion without deletion or publishing permissions. After several stable runs, you can turn the procedure into a reusable Hermes skill and add a schedule. The real value of MCP is not the number of connected servers. It is the ability to complete a recurring workflow with a small permission surface, verifiable results, and a clear data path.

Anthropic has launched Claude Opus 5 at the same price as Opus 4.8 while raising response quality close to Fable 5, a model that costs twice as much. In other words, with near-Fable performance at half the price, most users will likely choose Opus 5 as their default and reserve Fable 5 for the small number of tasks that truly require the highest capability ceiling. What upgrades does Claude Opus 5 bring? According to Anthropic's launch announcement, Claude Opus 5 is the most capable Opus model to date and the first Opus release in the Claude 5 generation. Anthropic describes it as proactive and capable of deep reasoning, approaching the highest intelligence of Claude Fable 5 across many domains while using only half the token budget. The API model ID is claude-opus-5. Like Opus 4.8 and Fable 5, it has a default and maximum context window of one million tokens, a 128,000-token output limit, and thinking enabled by default. It has become the default model on Claude Max and the most powerful model available on Claude Pro. It is also offered through the Claude API, Amazon Bedrock, Google Cloud, Microsoft Foundry, and GitHub Copilot. Why will many users choose Opus 5 over Fable 5? The answer is not limited to price. Four factors make Opus 5 likely to become the default choice for daily work while Fable 5 moves into a specialized role for a small number of exceptional cases. It wins more real-world evaluations than it loses On Frontier-Bench v0.1, Anthropic's automated coding evaluation, Opus 5 scores 43.3% while Fable 5 reaches only 33.7%, a gap of almost ten points in favor of Opus 5. On CursorBench 3.2 at maximum effort, Opus 5 reaches about 70.1%, less than half a percentage point behind Fable 5 while costing only half as much. Across evaluations where both models have published results, Opus 5 wins more often than it loses, and its victories are generally larger than its defeats. The fastest way to verify this is to run the same task on both models at comparable effort levels and compare the output quality instead of relying only on published benchmarks. No mandatory 30-day data retention Fable 5 and Mythos 5 are Covered Models that require prompts and outputs to be retained for 30 days for safety purposes. They do not support zero data retention (ZDR) on any platform, even when an organization already has a ZDR agreement. Opus 5, by contrast, can still operate under ZDR like Opus 4.8. For teams handling legal, medical, or financial data, this difference alone may remove Fable 5 from consideration without any performance comparison. Fewer interruptions from safety filters Anthropic says the cybersecurity classifier intervenes about 85% less often with Opus 5 than with Fable 5. For coding agents that run for hours or overnight, a request being blocked midway because it touches a safety threshold is a real workflow risk, and Opus 5 significantly reduces that frequency. Adjustable effort makes budgets easier to predict Opus 5 supports adaptive thinking with effort ranging from low to maximum. Low or medium works for fast responses and high-volume workloads, while high or maximum suits complex coding, deep research, and multi-step workflows. Because teams pay according to the selected effort instead of being locked into a fixed Fable 5 cost level, they can optimize the budget for each task rather than paying the highest rate on every request. Initial impressions after trying Opus 5 After using Opus 5 for daily writing and coding work, the clearest impression is that it is substantially smarter than Opus 4.8, especially in understanding intent on the first request without repeated explanation. For tasks such as summarizing long documents, writing code with complex branching logic, or preparing a multi-step plan, Opus 5 works smoothly and loses the thread less often than the earlier version. There is still a gap compared with Fable 5, although it is smaller than expected. On work that demands deep reasoning or autonomous execution across many consecutive steps without intervention, Fable 5 remains slightly more dependable and makes fewer mistakes. For most daily work, however, that difference is difficult to notice without placing both models side by side. If you are using Opus 4.8, this is a sensible time to upgrade. If you are choosing between Opus 5 and Fable 5 for ordinary work, Opus 5 is almost certainly sufficient without paying the premium. When is Fable 5 still the right choice? Fable 5 retains an advantage on the hardest work. On SWE-bench Pro, which uses real GitHub issues and is considered one of the strictest measures of practical coding, Fable 5 scores about 80% while Opus 5 reaches roughly 79%, a small gap that still favors Fable. Fable 5 is also the only model Anthropic positions in the Mythos class, meaning its overall capability is designed to exceed Opus. This distinction is clearest in specialized fields such as expert medical analysis and autonomous research that continues for days without supervision. In other words, Opus 5 wins in daily coding and knowledge work, while Fable 5 retains its edge on the hardest problems and fields requiring the highest possible reliability. For most users and small teams, those problems represent a small portion of daily work, making the twofold price difference difficult to justify unless their workload falls directly into that category. Quick comparison: Opus 5 vs. Fable 5 CriterionClaude Opus 5Claude Fable 5 Input price$5/million tokens$10/million tokens Output price$25/million tokens$50/million tokens Context1 million tokens1 million tokens Maximum output128,000 tokens128,000 tokens Frontier-Bench v0.1 (coding agent)43.3%33.7% SWE-bench Pro (practical coding)~79%~80% Data retentionSupports zero data retentionMandatory 30-day retention, no ZDR Safety-filter interventionAbout 85% lowerHigher Best fitDaily work, coding agents, sensitive dataDifficult research, multi-day autonomous projects, specialized medical analysis Can Opus 5 really compete with GPT-5.6? On paper, the answer is yes, but not across every category. Opus 5 leads GPT-5.6 Sol in reasoning about novel situations, computer use, and most public coding evaluations, while GPT-5.6 Sol remains ahead on some command-line and information-retrieval tests. Neither wins outright, but for the first time a mid-priced Anthropic model stands level with, and in several areas ahead of, OpenAI's flagship model. The more useful question is not which model is stronger overall but which one fits your work. If daily tasks center on code, long documents, and multi-step execution, Opus 5 is a compelling choice on both price and quality. If you already rely on the OpenAI ecosystem or need a specific GPT-5.6 strength, the switching cost may not be worthwhile. The most reliable answer is still to run the same job on both models, because benchmark tables do not always reflect real experience.

Imagine having an AI assistant that is incredibly smart but forgets everything between sessions and cannot check the quality of its own work. To solve this problem, developers created a protective management layer around AI models called an agent harness. This is what enables AI agents to complete complex, multi-step tasks autonomously without requiring constant human intervention. What is an agent harness? Think of an AI model as a brilliant new employee with no long-term memory and zero familiarity with the workplace. They can solve complex problems in seconds but will just as easily forget what they were working on, or accidentally send a confidential document to the wrong client. In that scenario, an agent harness acts as the experienced manager sitting right beside them, keeping things on track. Put simply, an agent harness is the software layer wrapping around an AI model that handles all administrative and logistical work so the model itself can focus entirely on reasoning and problem-solving. It connects the AI to external tools, maintains a complete record of work across sessions, and verifies results before considering a task done. In practice, an agent harness handles the following: Connecting the AI model to external tools such as web search, email, and calendars Persisting progress across sessions so the AI never has to start from scratch Filtering out irrelevant information and supplying only the data the AI actually needs at each step Monitoring AI actions to prevent dangerous mistakes Logging activity in detail so humans can audit what happened when needed Origin of the term: The concept of "agent harness" was formally named by technology engineer Mitchell Hashimoto in early 2026. Before that, many development teams had built similar systems but had no shared term for this layer of infrastructure. Why do AI agents fail at long-running tasks? The biggest weakness in today's AI models is the complete absence of long-term memory. Every new conversation starts from zero with no recollection of anything that happened before. Imagine hiring an employee who wakes up every morning having forgotten every agreement, every deadline, and every piece of progress from the day before. When Anthropic tested Claude building a complex web application without harness support, the results were consistently disappointing. Two failure modes kept appearing: The AI tried to do everything at once, ran out of working memory midway through, and left the project unfinished. The next session wasted time trying to figure out what had already been done. The AI declared the task complete without actually running the result to verify it worked. Beyond those two core failures, long-horizon tasks expose three additional problems: Context clog: Accumulated conversation history and tool outputs crowd out the original instructions, causing the AI to gradually lose focus on the actual goal Tool misuse: The AI sometimes searches for information that does not exist or submits incorrect inputs to forms, and without anything to stop it, repeats the same error in a loop Total progress loss on failure: Any network error or system crash wipes out whatever was stored in temporary memory, forcing a full restart Stanford research (2023): AI models tend to overlook information buried in the middle of long text, even when that text is not particularly long. This is why feeding too much data to an AI all at once often backfires without a filtering layer in place. How does an agent harness work in practice? An agent harness operates in two distinct phases to keep work flowing continuously without interruption. Setup phase (runs once) The harness prepares the full working environment before the AI begins: building a structured task list, initializing storage, and recording the starting point. Think of it as the manager drawing up a detailed project plan before handing anything off. This phase only needs to happen once. Execution phase (repeats) Each time the AI begins a new session, the harness automatically reloads all saved progress and assigns only the next relevant task. When the AI wants to take an action such as searching for information or sending a notification, the harness checks whether that request is valid, executes it safely, cleans the returned result, and passes it back to the AI. The model never touches external systems directly without going through this control layer first. The four core components of an agent harness For an AI to operate reliably over extended periods, a standard agent harness needs four essential components: External tool gateway: Allows the AI to interact with the real world by reading documents, searching the web, or sending messages. The harness acts as an intermediary, validating every request before execution and ensuring returned results are clean and usable. Layered memory management: Maintains three types of memory serving different needs: short-term working memory for the current session, a task log recording what has been completed and what remains, and a long-term knowledge store that accumulates across multiple projects over time. Intelligent context filter: Summarizes long conversation histories down to key points and supplies only the data relevant to the current step rather than loading everything at once, keeping the AI focused on the right task at the right moment. Safety checker and human approval gate: Automatically verifies results before marking a task as complete. For sensitive actions such as deleting important data or sending bulk emails, the harness pauses and waits for human confirmation before proceeding. Note on accumulated knowledge: If an AI agent's memory is stored entirely within a closed third-party platform, all the knowledge it builds up over time belongs to that platform. Switching to a different system means starting from zero. This is worth thinking through carefully when choosing a long-term AI agent solution. Harness engineering and the secret behind millions of lines of code Harness engineering is the practice of treating every AI failure as a system problem to fix permanently rather than something to retry or ignore. As Mitchell Hashimoto put it: if the agent makes a mistake, redesign the environment so that mistake becomes physically impossible to repeat. In practice, when OpenAI built large software projects with three engineers producing 3.5 pull requests each per day without typing a single line of code, they had set up automatic verification checks after every AI action. When the AI produced something incorrect, the system returned error messages written in a specific structure so the AI immediately understood what needed to change on the next attempt. Every error message became a learning signal, not just a warning. A study presented at ICML 2025 further confirmed that the same AI model equipped with a harness consistently outperformed itself running without one, even with identical training weights and identical prompts. The environment surrounding the AI matters just as much as the model itself. A telling data point: Anthropic's Claude Code has grown past 512,000 lines of code and continues to expand. More capable models do not make the harness simpler. They make it larger, because there is more capability to orchestrate and more failure modes to guard against. When do you actually need an agent harness? For simple one-off tasks like summarizing a document or answering a specific question, calling an AI directly is perfectly fine. But the moment work extends beyond a single conversation, requires memory from a previous session, or involves multiple steps that need to happen in a specific order, a harness becomes necessary. One thing worth reflecting on: the built-in web search in ChatGPT and Gemini is itself a form of harness. When AI automatically looks something up, there is infrastructure behind the scenes making the tool call, processing the result, and feeding clean information back into context. The harness is invisible to the user but indispensable to the system. Agent harness is not a short-term technical trend. It is the answer to fundamental limitations that AI cannot resolve on its own: no long-term memory, finite working context, and a tendency to misuse external tools without guardrails. 4AIVN has also started applying harness to our own workflows — and what we have found is that it does not just help AI finish tasks. It turns AI into a system that learns from failure and gets more reliable over time.

Markdown has been the default standard when working with AI for years, but an engineer from Anthropic's Claude Code team just raised a thought-provoking question: is that habit really the best choice? Thariq Shihipar's short post gathered over 15,000 likes on X in just a few days, and the reason is more convincing than you might think. Markdown was born in the era of token-poor AI Looking back at the days of GPT-4 with a context window of only 8,192 tokens, Markdown was an entirely reasonable choice. HTML was bulkier, consumed more resources, and in that constrained context, Markdown's simplicity was a real advantage for saving tokens. Thus, Markdown became the implicit standard, and that habit has stayed with us ever since. Even when Anthropic created the concept of Skills on Claude, they also set Markdown as the standard with the SKILL.md file—anyone who works with skills is surely familiar with this default. However, current AI models operate on a completely different scale. Many models now support context windows from 200,000 to 1 million tokens, and the cost of processing is no longer a major barrier (as Thariq Shihipar points out). He argues that this is the perfect time to reconsider that default. What can HTML do that Markdown cannot? The core reason Thariq presents is simple: some types of information are inherently spatial, but Markdown forces them to be linear text. When you compare three technical approaches, you need to see them side-by-side, not read them one after another and try to keep them in your head. When you review a code diff, you need to see the structure of the changes, not just a wall of text. HTML solves exactly that problem, which is why Thariq listed 9 specific groups of scenarios where HTML outclasses Markdown: Discovery and Planning: Comparing multiple approaches side-by-side instead of sequentially, and then transforming them into an implementation plan complete with flowcharts and timelines. Code Review and Understanding Project Structure: Highlighting changes directly with colors based on severity, and showing module diagrams as boxes and arrows—rather than plain text. UI Design: Displaying actual color palettes that can be copied instantly, and rendering UI component variants directly instead of describing them in words. Rapid Prototyping: Creating interactive animation adjustment panels with slider controls, and screens that can actually be clicked—something Markdown cannot express. Diagrams and Illustrations: Utilizing inline vector graphics to draw actual flowcharts, rather than stitching together ASCII characters. Slide Decks: A few <section> tags and 20 lines of JavaScript can form a slide deck navigatable with arrow keys, without needing specialized software or export steps. Research and Learning: Structuring documents with collapsible sections, code tabs, and glossaries—rather than dumping the entire content in a single vertical stream. Periodic Reports: Weekly status summaries with sparklines and color-coded progress indicators that actually encourage people to read, rather than just skim. Custom Editing Interfaces: Building drag-and-drop task boards or feature flag dashboards with dependency alerts—making it a functional tool rather than just text to read and forget. Thariq has assembled 20 files illustrating all of these categories at thariqs.github.io/html-effectiveness, each of which opens directly in your browser without requiring any installation. How to use HTML with AI in practice? Applying this is not complicated; it just requires a shift in how you write prompts. Instead of letting the model choose the output format, explicitly specify HTML when the content is meant to be reviewed, interacted with, or shared with others. For example, here is a prompt Thariq suggests for reviewing code: Help me review this PR by generating an HTML document that describes it. I'm not very familiar with streaming/backpressure logic, so please focus on that part. Show the actual diff with inline margin comments, color-code findings by severity, and include anything else necessary to explain the concepts clearly. Similarly, you can ask the AI to generate an implementation plan as HTML with a timeline and data flow diagram, or a weekly status report with small charts and progress-colored indicators. Simon Willison, author of the famous tech blog, also admitted that this article made him reconsider his habit of using Markdown from the GPT-4 era until now. When modern AI models can embed vector graphics, interactive widgets, and in-page navigation, Markdown is no longer the obvious default choice. Markdown still has its place, but not everywhere Thariq is not saying we should always use HTML; rather, he makes a clear distinction: Markdown is suitable for casual chats, short code snippets, brief answers, and anything that is pure text. Meanwhile, HTML shines when the output requires spatial layouts, colors, interactivity, or complex structures—where the content is multi-dimensional enough that Markdown would start flattening the information rather than conveying it effectively. The community reacted quickly: a skill named html-artifacts has appeared on GitHub, helping AI automatically recognize when it should generate HTML files instead of Markdown. It includes the 9 scenarios from Thariq's original article and can be used with any model that supports reading skills. Notably, this skill has clear exclusions for short answers and code-only outputs. You can check it out at github.com/dogum/html-artifacts. Thariq doesn't mention JSON in his article, but it is also a very popular format when working with AI, especially for those who frequently use n8n, Make, or Zapier. Nevertheless, each format brings its own flavor to specific situations. How Markdown, HTML, and JSON divide their usage The debate is actually not just about Markdown or HTML. JSON is also a very popular format when working with AI, especially in data processing workflows and system integrations. These three formats serve three different purposes, and understanding those boundaries helps you choose the right tool for each situation. Markdown is best for text read directly in chat: notes, short explanations, code snippets, simple documents. Fast, lightweight, no need to open anything else. HTML is best when the output needs to be visualized, interacted with, or shared: reports with layouts, diagrams, comparison tables, slide decks, custom interfaces. Open with a browser and you are good to go. JSON is best when the output needs to be processed by a machine: storing structured data, transferring between systems, or feeding into the next step of a workflow. Humans can read it, but it is not meant for reading. In other words, JSON does not compete with HTML or Markdown in terms of presentation; it serves an entirely different purpose. The real issue is that many AI users default to receiving output in Markdown even when they need HTML to view it or JSON to process it. By simply specifying your preference in the prompt, the AI will adapt. Quick Decision Rule: Output to read in chat → Markdown. Output to view in a browser → HTML. Output to be processed by a machine → JSON. What does this change for the average AI user? If you use AI primarily for Q&A or writing, this change has less impact. But if you are using AI for more complex tasks like data analysis, project planning, document reviews, research synthesis, or creating reports for colleagues, this is a small prompt adjustment that creates a clear gap in output quality, regardless of which AI tool you are using. You should try it once: next time you need the AI to compare options or summarize a complex document, add "generate as an HTML file" to the end of your prompt. Open that file in your browser and compare it to how you usually do it with Markdown or JSON—the results will speak for themselves.