Generate the OAuth authorization URL users open to connect a WHOOP account; after approval, pass the returned code to whoop_connect.
Start connecting a WHOOP account: returns the OAuth authorization URL for the user to open in a browser. After approving, the browser lands on the redirect URI with a code parameter to pass to whoop_connect.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so reasonably: it discloses that the output is a URL for browser use, that approval results in a redirect carrying a `code`, and where that code goes next. It does not mention URL expiry, required prior auth, or state handling, which leaves some operational gaps.
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?
Two tightly written sentences with the action and return value front-loaded, followed by the handoff instruction. No filler or redundancy.
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?
For a zero-parameter, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what it returns, how the user interacts with it, and which tool consumes the resulting code. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for zero-param tools is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and the description correctly implies no user input is required.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('returns the OAuth authorization URL') and scopes it to starting a WHOOP connection. It clearly differentiates from the sibling whoop_connect, which it positions as the next step rather than the same action.
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?
Explains when to use it (to start connecting an account) and explicitly routes the agent to the follow-up tool whoop_connect after the user approves. It lacks an explicit 'do not use this if already connected' exclusion, so it falls just short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.