Retrieve today's sleep metrics from Oura Ring data to analyze sleep quality, duration, and patterns for health monitoring.
Get sleep data for today.
Returns:
Dictionary containing sleep data for today
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Input schema / titleAdded value: +"get_today_sleep_dataArguments"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'Returns: Dictionary containing sleep data for today', which adds some behavioral context about the output format. However, it lacks details on error handling, data freshness, authentication needs, or rate limits, which are important for a data-fetching tool.
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 very concise with two short sentences, front-loading the purpose and then specifying the return format. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the return info more seamlessly.
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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and return format, but lacks context on data sources, update frequency, or error cases, which could help the agent use it more effectively.
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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter info, but that's appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied as it adequately addresses the lack of parameters.
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 ('sleep data for today'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_sleep_data' by specifying 'today', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like 'get_today_readiness_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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention its sibling tools (e.g., 'get_sleep_data' for other date ranges or 'get_today_readiness_data' for different data types), leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.