whoop-postgres-mcp

whoop_overview

Get a one-call snapshot of recovery, vitals vs 30-day baseline, last night's sleep, recent workouts, and strain from the local WHOOP database; sync first to refresh.

Instructions

One-call snapshot: latest recovery and vitals compared with the 30-day baseline (delta and z-score), last night's sleep, and recent workouts and daily strain. Reads the local database only; run whoop_sync first to refresh.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "whoop_overview"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No	Window for the recent workouts and cycles sections.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does well: it discloses that the tool reads the local database only (no network/live fetch) and that data can be stale without whoop_sync. It omits return shape and whether the 30-day baseline needs prior data to exist, hence not a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler: the content list is front-loaded, and the operational caveat (local DB, sync first) is placed after. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a multi-section aggregate tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the returned sections and the sync prerequisite, which is enough for correct invocation. It could clarify what happens with insufficient history for the 30-day baseline, but no critical gap remains.

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% and the single 'days' parameter is fully documented in the schema as the window for workouts/cycles. The description's phrasing 'recent workouts' loosely echoes it but adds no format, bounds, or default detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific action (one-call snapshot) and enumerates the exact contents: recovery/vitals vs 30-day baseline, sleep, workouts, strain. It is clearly distinguishable from the granular siblings (whoop_recovery, whoop_sleep, whoop_workouts), which each return one slice of what this aggregates.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives an explicit prerequisite (run whoop_sync first to refresh) and implies the aggregate use case via 'one-call snapshot'. It does not explicitly say to prefer this over the individual sibling calls, but the framing makes the alternative clear enough.

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

Deploy Server