Skip to main content
Glama

vital

by io.usefulapi

Create link token

vital_create_link_token
Destructive

Creates a short-lived Link token to connect a user's wearable/provider (no health data is modified). Vital API: POST /v2/link/token.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_idYesThe Vital user id to create the link token for (required).
providerNoPre-select a single provider slug to connect.
redirect_urlNoURL to redirect to after the connection flow.
filter_on_providersNoRestrict the connectable providers to this list of slugs.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the token is short-lived and no health data is modified. This is valuable given the destructiveHint annotation, though it does not explain what destructive side effects, if any, may exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that states purpose, scope, and safety context, followed by a precise endpoint reference. Every part earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple creation tool with full parameter coverage and clear naming, the description is nearly complete. It does not spell out the return payload, but the tool name and description make it obvious the output is the generated link token.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the schema carries the burden, making the baseline score appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific action and resource: creates a short-lived Link token. It also includes the exact API endpoint (POST /v2/link/token), making it unambiguous and easily distinguished from the sibling get/list tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states the intended use case: connecting a user's wearable/provider. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternative routing, but no sibling tool performs link-token creation, so the context is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All vital toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a unique resource/action pairing—users, health summaries, timeseries, providers, and lab orders—so an agent can reliably distinguish them. Even similarly named getters are separated by the data domain (activity/body/sleep/workouts) and description.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools use the vital_ prefix and snake_case verb_noun forms, which is highly predictable. Minor inconsistency: get is used for both single-resource fetches and list-returning calls (get_workouts, get_user_connected_providers) while list is reserved for global collections.

Tool Count4/5

21 tools is on the heavier side, but the breadth of the Vital API—users, providers, many health summary types, timeseries, and lab tests/orders—justifies most of them. It is slightly over a typical focused MCP server but not bloated or redundant.

Completeness3/5

The read side is strong: users, providers, summaries, timeseries, lab tests, and results are all covered. However, there are no update/delete user operations and no way to create a lab-test order, so core lifecycle/workflow gaps remain.

Resources