Workouts do WHOOP: esporte, strain, FC média e máxima, zonas de FC, distância e altimetria quando disponíveis. Paginado por limit/start/end/next_token; ou passe workout_ids (UUID) pra registros específicos. Dados de wearable, não substituem avaliação médica profissional.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| next_token | No | ||
| workout_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral value by naming the returned data fields, the pagination mechanism, and a caution that wearable data is not a medical substitute, going beyond what the annotations provide.
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 three concise sentences with no filler: purpose/fields, pagination/specific ID usage, and a health-data disclaimer. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given there is no output schema, the description provides enough context about the returned data and filtering modes for typical use. It is slightly incomplete because account semantics and some output details are not addressed, but overall this is a useful and sufficient description.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does explain the pagination parameters (limit/start/end/next_token) and workout_ids. However, the account parameter is left completely unexplained, which is the main gap.
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 that the tool retrieves WHOOP workout data, enumerating the key fields (sport, strain, heart rates, HR zones, distance/elevation) and the two access modes: paginated or by workout_ids. It also distinguishes itself from sibling WHOOP tools like whoop_sleep and whoop_recovery.
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 practical usage context by explaining that results are paginated via limit/start/end/next_token or can be retrieved for specific records with workout_ids. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the WHOOP-specific scope makes the intended use clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.