HealthLedger MCP

Import wearable samples

import_wearable_samples

Import multiple wearable health data samples at once using a JSON array, with a limit per call for batch processing.

Instructions

Bulk import wearable samples from a JSON array of objects. Capped per call.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "samples_json": "<samples_json>"
    },
    "name": "import_wearable_samples"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`user`	No
`samples_json`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description correctly implies a non-idempotent write operation. It adds 'Capped per call' as behavioral context, but does not explain what happens when the cap is exceeded (e.g., partial success, error). More detail on the behavior would improve transparency.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys bulk import and the cap. Every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a bulk import tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description omits critical details such as the JSON array format, field requirements, the cap limit, and the behavior on limit exceeded or partial failures. The presence of an output schema does not excuse missing input semantics.

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

Parameters1/5

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 mentions 'from a JSON array of objects' but does not clarify that 'samples_json' is a JSON string nor describe the optional 'user' parameter. The agent has no insight into parameter formats, constraints, or required structure.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states 'Bulk import wearable samples from a JSON array of objects', which distinguishes it from the sibling 'add_wearable_sample' (singular import). The verb 'import' and resource 'wearable samples' are clear. However, the mention of 'Capped per call' is vague and could be more specific about the limit.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for bulk imports without explicitly contrasting with the singular 'add_wearable_sample'. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, nor any alternatives mentioned. The agent must infer the appropriate context from the sibling tool names.

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

Deploy Server