Get a specific LibreLink Up connection by patient (returns target range, sensor info, latest glucose measurement envelope). Read-only CGM data — not for medical decisions without clinician review.
Bulk support: accepts patient_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| patient_id | No | ||
| patient_ids | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent. The description adds that it returns target range, sensor info, and latest glucose envelope, and warns about medical use. No contradictions with annotations.
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?
Two sentences, no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds value. Very concise.
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?
With 3 parameters and no output schema, the description outlines return content and bulk support. It is sufficient but could elaborate on the structure of 'envelope' or other returned fields.
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 has 0% description coverage; the description adds meaning to patient_ids by stating it supports batched execution, but does not explain account or patient_id parameters. Partial compensation.
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 states the tool gets a specific connection by patient and lists the returned data (target range, sensor info, latest glucose measurement). It differentiates from sibling tools like librelink_get_current_glucose which focus on readings, not connection details.
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 notes that data is read-only and not for medical decisions without review, providing caution. It mentions bulk support via patient_ids, indicating batch use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct by function, but librelink_list_accounts and librelink_list_connections are exact aliases, causing confusion. Some glucose tools have overlapping outputs (e.g., librelink_get_current_glucose vs librelink_get_latest_reading), though descriptions help differentiate them.
CGM data tools consistently use the librelink_ prefix, but authentication, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, and toolkit_info lack the prefix, mixing conventions. This inconsistency makes the tool set feel disjointed.
With 16 tools, the set is slightly larger than needed, but it covers the main CGM functionalities plus platform utilities. The number is still reasonable and manageable, with each tool serving a specific purpose.
The CGM data tools provide comprehensive read-only access (current, graph, stats, logbook, etc.), but there are no write operations (e.g., setting targets) or historical data beyond ~12-14 days. The inclusion of marketplace and configuration tools feels out of scope but does not leave critical gaps for the stated domain.