Skip to main content
Glama
armonge

Wahoo MCP Server

by armonge
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Wahoo MCP Server

CI codecov Python 3.13+ License: GPL v3

A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for interacting with the Wahoo Cloud API, focusing on reading workout information.

Features

  • Workouts: List workouts with pagination and date filtering, get detailed workout information

  • Routes: List and retrieve saved cycling/running routes

  • Training Plans: Access and create training plans in your Wahoo account

  • Power Zones: View power zone configurations for different workout types

  • OAuth 2.0 Authentication: Secure authentication with automatic token refresh

  • Comprehensive workout type support: 72 different workout types with location and family categorization

  • Async/await implementation: High-performance async operations using httpx

  • Automatic token management: Tokens are refreshed automatically when they expire

Related MCP server: concept2-mcp-server

Installation

Using uv (recommended)

First, install uv if you haven't already:

curl -LsSf https://astral.sh/uv/install.sh | sh

Then install the project dependencies:

uv venv
source .venv/bin/activate  # On Windows: .venv\Scripts\activate
uv pip install -e .

For development:

uv pip install -e ".[dev]"

Using pip (alternative)

If you prefer using pip:

python3.13 -m venv .venv
source .venv/bin/activate  # On Windows: .venv\Scripts\activate
pip install -e .

For development:

pip install -e ".[dev]"

Configuration

Getting an Access Token

  1. Register your application at Wahoo's Developer Portal to get a Client ID and Client Secret.

  2. Create a .env file from the example:

    cp .env.example .env

    Then edit .env and add your credentials:

    WAHOO_CLIENT_ID=your_client_id_here
WAHOO_CLIENT_SECRET=your_client_secret_here

  3. Set the token file path in your .env file:

    WAHOO_TOKEN_FILE=token.json

  4. Use the authentication helper:

    make auth
# or
uv run python src/auth.py

    This will:

    • Use credentials from .env (or prompt if not set)

    • Open a browser for OAuth authentication

    • Start a local server to receive the callback

    • Save your tokens to the file specified by WAHOO_TOKEN_FILE

    • Tokens will be automatically refreshed when needed

Configuration Options

The auth server can be configured via environment variables:

Server Configuration:

  • WAHOO_AUTH_HOST: Auth server bind address (default: localhost)

  • WAHOO_AUTH_PORT: Auth server port (default: 8080)

Redirect URL Configuration:

  • WAHOO_REDIRECT_HOST: OAuth callback host (default: uses WAHOO_AUTH_HOST)

  • WAHOO_REDIRECT_PORT: OAuth callback port (default: uses WAHOO_AUTH_PORT)

  • WAHOO_REDIRECT_SCHEME: URL scheme - http or https (default: http)

Credentials:

  • WAHOO_CLIENT_ID: Your Wahoo Client ID

  • WAHOO_CLIENT_SECRET: Your Wahoo Client Secret

  • WAHOO_TOKEN_FILE: Path to store OAuth tokens (required)

Example Configurations:

  1. Local Development (default):

    # Redirect URL will be: http://localhost:8080/callback

  2. Using ngrok:

    WAHOO_AUTH_HOST=localhost
WAHOO_AUTH_PORT=8080
WAHOO_REDIRECT_HOST=your-app.ngrok.io
WAHOO_REDIRECT_PORT=443
WAHOO_REDIRECT_SCHEME=https
# Redirect URL will be: https://your-app.ngrok.io:443/callback

Note: When registering your app with Wahoo, use the redirect URL that matches your configuration.

Usage

Running the MCP Server

uv run python -m src.server

Or if you've activated the virtual environment:

python -m src.server

Using with Claude Desktop

Add the following to your Claude Desktop configuration file:

Configuration file location:

  • macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

  • Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json

  • Linux: ~/.config/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

Example configuration:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "wahoo": {
      "type": "stdio",
      "command": "/path/to/uv",
      "args": [
        "--project",
        "/path/to/wahoo-mcp",
        "run",
        "python",
        "-m",
        "src.server"
      ],
      "env": {
        "WAHOO_TOKEN_FILE": "/path/to/wahoo-mcp/token.json"
      }
    }
  }
}

Make sure to replace /path/to/ with your actual paths.

Available Tools

list_workouts

List workouts from your Wahoo account.

Parameters:

  • page (optional): Page number (default: 1)

  • per_page (optional): Number of items per page (default: 30)

  • start_date (optional): Filter workouts created after this date (ISO 8601 format)

  • end_date (optional): Filter workouts created before this date (ISO 8601 format)

Example:

Use the list_workouts tool to show my recent workouts

get_workout

Get detailed information about a specific workout.

Parameters:

  • workout_id (required): The ID of the workout to retrieve

Example:

Use the get_workout tool to get details for workout ID 12345

list_routes

List routes from your Wahoo account.

Parameters:

  • external_id (optional): Filter routes by external ID

Example:

Use the list_routes tool to show my saved routes

get_route

Get detailed information about a specific route.

Parameters:

  • route_id (required): The ID of the route to retrieve

Example:

Use the get_route tool to get details for route ID 456

list_plans

List training plans from your Wahoo account.

Parameters:

  • external_id (optional): Filter plans by external ID

Example:

Use the list_plans tool to show my training plans

get_plan

Get detailed information about a specific plan.

Parameters:

  • plan_id (required): The ID of the plan to retrieve

Example:

Use the get_plan tool to get details for plan ID 789

list_power_zones

List power zones from your Wahoo account.

Parameters: None

Example:

Use the list_power_zones tool to show my power zones

get_power_zone

Get detailed information about a specific power zone.

Parameters:

  • power_zone_id (required): The ID of the power zone to retrieve

Example:

Use the get_power_zone tool to get details for power zone ID 321

create_plan

Create a new training plan in your Wahoo account.

Parameters:

  • plan (required): Complete workout plan structure containing:

    • name (required): Name of the workout plan

    • description (optional): Description of the workout

    • intervals (required): List of workout intervals, each containing:

      • duration (required): Duration in seconds

      • targets (required): List of targets (power, heart_rate, speed, pace, rpe, cadence)

      • name (optional): Name/description of the interval

      • interval_type (optional): Type (work, rest, warmup, cooldown, tempo, threshold, recovery, active, or Wahoo types: wu, cd, lt, map, ac, nm, ftp, recover)

    • workout_type (optional): Type of workout (bike, run, swim) - defaults to "bike"

    • estimated_duration (optional): Estimated total duration in seconds

    • estimated_tss (optional): Estimated Training Stress Score

    • author (optional): Author of the plan

  • external_id (required): Unique external ID for the plan

  • provider_updated_at (required): External date/time the file was updated (ISO 8601 format)

  • filename (optional): Name of the plan file

Example:

Use the create_plan tool to create a new training plan with intervals for power and heart rate zones

Development

Running Tests

uv run pytest

Or if you've activated the virtual environment:

pytest

Project Structure

wahoo-mcp/
├── src/
│   ├── __init__.py
│   ├── server.py       # Main MCP server implementation
│   ├── auth.py         # OAuth authentication helper
│   ├── token_store.py  # Token storage and refresh logic
│   └── models.py       # Pydantic models for API data structures
├── tests/
│   ├── __init__.py
│   ├── test_server.py  # Server test suite
│   └── test_token_store.py  # Token store tests
├── pyproject.toml      # Project configuration
└── README.md          # This file

API Reference

The server implements the following Wahoo Cloud API endpoints:

Workouts:

  • GET /v1/workouts - List workouts with pagination and date filtering

  • GET /v1/workouts/{id} - Get detailed workout information

Routes:

  • GET /v1/routes - List saved routes

  • GET /v1/routes/{id} - Get route details including GPS data

Training Plans:

  • GET /v1/plans - List training plans

  • GET /v1/plans/{id} - Get plan details

  • POST /v1/plans - Create a new training plan

Power Zones:

  • GET /v1/power_zones - List power zone configurations

  • GET /v1/power_zones/{id} - Get specific power zone details

For full API documentation, see Wahoo Cloud API.

License

This project is licensed under the GNU General Public License v3.0 - see the LICENSE file for details.

Available Tools

9 tools
create_planC

Create a new plan in the user's library

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
planYesComplete workout plan structure
filenameNoName of the plan file
external_idYesUnique external ID for the plan
provider_updated_atYesExternal date/time the file was updated (ISO 8601 format)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention permissions required, whether it's idempotent, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a plan ID). For a mutation tool 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information about what the tool does.

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 creation tool with complex nested parameters (4 params, 3 required, nested objects) and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid 'plan' structure, how to handle the 'external_id', or what the tool returns upon success.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the comprehensive schema documentation.

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 the action ('Create') and resource ('new plan in the user's library'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_plan' or 'list_plans', but it's not misleading or tautological.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 'list_plans' or 'get_plan'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, 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.

get_planC

Get detailed information about a specific plan

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
plan_idYesThe ID of the plan to retrieve

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('get'), but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., fields, format). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. However, it could be more front-loaded with critical details like required parameters or key constraints, slightly reducing its effectiveness.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' returns, error handling, or behavioral traits. For a tool with one parameter but unknown output complexity, this leaves the agent under-informed about what to expect.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'plan_id' documented as 'The ID of the plan to retrieve'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as ID format or sourcing. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers the parameter.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Get detailed information about a specific plan' clearly states the action (get) and resource (plan), but it's vague about what 'detailed information' entails. It distinguishes from list_plans by specifying retrieval of a single plan, but doesn't differentiate from other get_* tools like get_power_zone or get_workout beyond the resource name.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a plan_id), when not to use it (e.g., for listing multiple plans), or direct comparisons to siblings like list_plans or create_plan.

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

get_power_zoneB

Get detailed information about a specific power zone

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
power_zone_idYesThe ID of the power zone to retrieve

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns errors for invalid IDs, or provides pagination details. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, with every part contributing to understanding the tool's function.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, or output expectations, which are needed for full contextual understanding despite the simple schema.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'power_zone_id' documented as 'The ID of the power zone to retrieve'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('power zone'), and specifies the scope ('detailed information about a specific power zone'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_power_zones' or 'get_plan', which would require mentioning retrieval of a single zone versus listing multiple zones or other resources.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a power_zone_id), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'list_power_zones' for browsing zones or 'get_plan' for related data, 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.

get_routeB

Get detailed information about a specific route

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
route_idYesThe ID of the route to retrieve

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 the action ('Get') but does not reveal whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format entails. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It does not explain return values or behavioral traits, which are crucial for a tool with no structured output or safety hints, leaving gaps in completeness.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'route_id' documented as 'The ID of the route to retrieve'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('route') with specificity ('detailed information about a specific route'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_routes' or 'get_plan', which would require more nuance to achieve a perfect score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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, such as 'list_routes' for multiple routes or other 'get_' tools for different resources. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

get_workoutB

Get detailed information about a specific workout

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workout_idYesThe ID of the workout to retrieve

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., if workout_id is invalid), authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., fields, format). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose but doesn't address usage guidelines, behavioral details, or output information. For a simple read tool, it's adequate but leaves clear gaps that could hinder effective agent use.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'workout_id' documented in the schema as 'The ID of the workout to retrieve'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as ID format or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific workout'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_workouts' or 'get_plan', which would require mentioning it retrieves a single workout by ID versus listing multiple workouts or getting other entity types.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid workout_id), contrast with 'list_workouts' for multiple workouts, or specify contexts like after listing workouts to get details. The description is standalone without usage context.

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

list_plansC

List plans from Wahoo Cloud API

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
external_idNoFilter plans by external ID

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 the action is to 'List plans', implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it could be more front-loaded with critical details, but it's structurally sound for its brevity.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., how results are returned, any limitations) and does not compensate for the missing structured data, making it insufficient for effective tool use.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'external_id' documented as 'Filter plans by external ID'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, as it mentions no parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('List') and resource ('plans from Wahoo Cloud API'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'list_power_zones', 'list_routes', or 'list_workouts' beyond specifying 'plans', so it lacks sibling distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as when to use 'list_plans' over 'get_plan' or other list tools, leaving usage unclear.

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

list_power_zonesB

List power zones from Wahoo Cloud API

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. This leaves significant gaps for an API tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what power zones are, what data is returned, or behavioral aspects like authentication needs. Given the API context and sibling tools, more context would help the agent use this effectively.

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

Parameters4/5

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 documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail.

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 the action ('List') and resource ('power zones from Wahoo Cloud API'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_power_zone' (singular vs. plural) or explain what distinguishes listing from getting individual zones.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_power_zone' or other list tools. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

list_routesC

List routes from Wahoo Cloud API

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
external_idNoFilter routes by external ID

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'from Wahoo Cloud API' hinting at external data source, but lacks details on behavior: e.g., pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'list' entails (e.g., returns all routes or a subset).

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple tool with one parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral traits, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents the single parameter 'external_id' with its description. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the action ('List') and resource ('routes'), but is vague about scope and source ('from Wahoo Cloud API' adds some context). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_route' (singular vs. plural) or 'list_plans'/'list_workouts' (different resource types).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_route' (for a single route) or other list tools. The description implies it's for listing routes, but doesn't specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

list_workoutsC

List workouts from Wahoo Cloud API

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number (default: 1)
per_pageNoNumber of items per page (default: 30)
start_dateNoFilter workouts created after this date (ISO 8601 format)
end_dateNoFilter workouts created before this date (ISO 8601 format)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond parameters, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with an external API.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward list operation and gets directly to the point with zero wasted content.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'workout' contains, the response format, error conditions, or authentication requirements. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects when calling this API tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear documentation of all 4 parameters (page, per_page, start_date, end_date). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't provide extra context like date format examples or pagination limits.

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 the verb ('List') and resource ('workouts from Wahoo Cloud API'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_workout' (singular) or 'list_routes'/'list_plans', which would require specifying what distinguishes listing workouts from other list operations.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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_workout' (singular) or other list tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, authentication needs, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific resources (plans, power zones, routes, workouts) with clear action verbs (create, get, list). There is no ambiguity or overlap between tools, as each tool name precisely indicates what resource it operates on and what action it performs.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case throughout. The naming convention is perfectly predictable: create_plan, get_plan, list_plans, get_power_zone, list_power_zones, etc. There are no deviations or mixed styles.

Tool Count5/5

With 9 tools, this server is well-scoped for managing Wahoo fitness resources. Each tool earns its place by covering distinct operations (create, get, list) across four resource types (plans, power zones, routes, workouts), providing a balanced and focused toolset.

Completeness3/5

The server covers get and list operations comprehensively for all four resource types, plus create for plans. However, there are notable gaps: no update or delete operations for any resource, and create is missing for power zones, routes, and workouts. This limits full lifecycle management.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • Wahoo MCP Server

    ClemensHar
    A
    license
    B
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for interacting with the Wahoo Cloud API, focusing on reading workout information.
    10
    GPL 3.0

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/armonge/wahoo-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server