Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
whoop-postgres-mcp

whoop-postgres-mcp

by cunicopia-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

whoop_status

Check WHOOP sync health from the local Postgres database, including connected user, per-collection sync times, watermarks, row counts, and last errors. Run sync first to refresh.

Instructions

Sync health: connected user, and per collection the last sync time, watermark, row count, and last error. 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_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the critical behavioral trait that it reads local DB only and requires whoop_sync to refresh, which prevents stale-data misuse. It doesn't cover auth requirements or response format, but the key operational caveat is present.

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 — the first enumerates outputs, the second gives the operational caveat. Front-loaded and waste-free.

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 zero-param diagnostic reader with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the prerequisite to refresh. It is nearly complete; only auth or rate-limit behavior is unstated, but those are minor for a local read.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed by describing purely output-oriented behavior.

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?

Specific verb and resource: it reports sync health. It names exactly what is reported (connected user, last sync time, watermark, row count, last error per collection), making it clearly distinct from sync-action siblings like whoop_sync and from data siblings like whoop_recovery.

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?

Explicitly states it reads the local database only and instructs to run whoop_sync first to refresh — a clear usage condition. It doesn't name when not to use it, but the local-only constraint effectively excludes live-data expectations.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools