Exchange the OAuth code from the redirect URL for tokens, store them in Postgres, and return the connected user's summary.
Finish connecting: exchange the OAuth code from the redirect URL for tokens, store them in Postgres, and return the connected user's summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | The `code` query parameter from the OAuth redirect URL. |
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 full disclosure burden. It does disclose a meaningful side effect (tokens are stored in Postgres) and the return (connected user's summary), which is more than most. However, it says nothing about failure modes, code single-use/idempotency, token scope or expiry, or permission requirements.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Finish connecting') and packed with the essential sequence of effects. No filler, nothing redundant.
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 one-parameter connection-finalization tool with no output schema, the description covers the input source, the side effect, and the return value. It falls slightly short on describing what 'the connected user's summary' actually contains and on error/retry behavior.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already defines code as 'the `code` query parameter from the OAuth redirect URL,' which is exactly what the description repeats. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
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 precise verb+resource chain: exchange the OAuth code for tokens, persist them in Postgres, and return the user summary. 'Finish connecting' makes it clearly the completion step of the flow, which cleanly separates it from sibling whoop_auth_url (which starts the flow).
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?
'Finish connecting' plus 'the OAuth code from the redirect URL' establishes the required context: this is the second call in the flow, made after the user authorizes and is redirected. It does not explicitly name whoop_auth_url as the prerequisite or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.