Retrieve resilience metrics from Oura Ring health data for a specified date range to analyze stress recovery and physical adaptation patterns.
Get resilience data for a specific date range.
Args:
start_date: Start date in ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD)
end_date: End date in ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD)
Returns:
Dictionary containing resilience data
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| start_date | Yes | ||
| end_date | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Input schema / titleAdded value: +"get_resilience_dataArguments"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'resilience data' actually contains. The return format description ('Dictionary containing resilience data') is too vague to be helpful.
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 appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns). Each sentence adds value, though the return description could be more specific. It's front-loaded with the core purpose statement.
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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details about what resilience data includes, how results are structured, or behavioral constraints. The absence of output schema means the return description should be more informative.
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?
The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It specifies that both parameters are dates in ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD), clarifies they're required, and explains their purpose (defining a date range). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('resilience data'), and specifies the date range scope. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_today_resilience_data' or explain what distinguishes resilience data from readiness or sleep data.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_today_resilience_data' (which presumably fetches today's data without date parameters) or other sibling tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or comparative use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.