Skip to main content
Glama
GetSensr-io

Sensor Bio MCP Server

Official
by GetSensr-io

get_scores

Retrieve a user's biometric scores for a specific date, date range, or recent days. Returns daily results and a summary.

Instructions

Get scores for a user.

Accepted date inputs (mutually exclusive):

  • date (YYYY-MM-DD, optional; default: today in SENSR_TZ or America/Chicago)

  • OR start_date/end_date (YYYY-MM-DD, inclusive)

  • OR days (int >=1): last N days ending today

Returns: {range, results:[{date,data}], summary}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNo
daysNo
user_idYes
end_dateNo
start_dateNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses date input behavior, defaults (today in SENSR_TZ or America/Chicago), inclusive ranges, and the return structure. It does not mention error handling or auth, but 'get' clearly implies a safe read operation.

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 efficiently structured: a one-line purpose, a bulleted list of input options, and a return shape summary. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the output schema exists and the description covers parameter semantics, defaults, and return format, the tool is fully specified for invocation. It lacks minor edge-case details but is complete for its purpose.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates thoroughly by explaining the date parameters (format, defaults, exclusivity, inclusive range, days >=1). It also implies user_id via 'for a user.' No parameter is left ambiguous.

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 clearly states 'Get scores for a user' with a specific verb and resource, and the user-level scope distinguishes it from the sibling get_org_scores_summary. It is immediately obvious what the tool does.

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 provides clear context by detailing accepted date input modes and their mutual exclusivity, and the 'for a user' phrasing implies user-level usage distinct from org summaries. It does not name explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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