Get the high-resolution ~12h glucose graph for a connection (raw graphData array of measurement points). Read-only CGM data — not for medical decisions without clinician review.
For a single current reading use librelink_get_current_glucose; for stats use librelink_get_glucose_stats.
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?
The description states 'Read-only CGM data', aligning with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations. It adds context about not using for medical decisions without review, enhancing transparency beyond 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?
The description is concise, consisting of three sentences with no repetition. Key information is front-loaded: purpose, differentiation, and bulk support.
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 description adequately conveys the purpose and return type (raw graphData array) but lacks parameter details. Given the tool's moderate complexity and absence of output schema, more detail on parameters would improve completeness.
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% with no parameter descriptions. The description only mentions patient_ids for batch execution, but fails to explain 'account' and 'patient_id' parameters, leaving their meaning unclear.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'high-resolution ~12h glucose graph for a connection', specifying the raw graphData array as the return format. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning alternatives for single reading and stats.
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?
Explicit guidance is provided: 'For a single current reading use librelink_get_current_glucose; for stats use librelink_get_glucose_stats.' It also notes bulk support via patient_ids, informing when to use this tool over alternatives.
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.