Retrieve today's resilience metrics from Oura Ring data to monitor stress recovery and physical adaptation for health analysis.
Get resilience data for today.
Returns:
Dictionary containing resilience data for today
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Input schema / titleAdded value: +"get_today_resilience_dataArguments"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a dictionary but lacks details on behavioral traits such as data freshness, error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, but the 'Returns:' section is redundant as it restates the purpose without adding value. It could be more concise by omitting the second sentence or integrating it better.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on the return format (e.g., structure of the dictionary), error conditions, or dependencies. For a tool with siblings and no structured support, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add param semantics beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate for gaps.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('resilience data for today'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_resilience_data' by specifying 'today', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_today_readiness_data' or 'get_today_sleep_data' beyond the resource type.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_resilience_data' (which might fetch broader date ranges) or other 'today' tools for different data types. The description implies usage for today's resilience data but offers no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.