Polar MCP

Polar Account Data

polar_get_account_data

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read Polar account fields via AccessLink (requires profile:read) to retrieve user profile data with optional privacy modes and Markdown or JSON output.

Instructions

Read Polar user account fields exposed by AccessLink. Requires profile:read.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`privacy_mode`	No	Optional per-call privacy override. Defaults to POLAR_PRIVACY_MODE or structured. raw returns upstream Polar JSON. summary removes GPS/map details.
`response_format`	No		markdown
`explicit_user_intent`	No	Required true when privacy_mode=raw or include_gps=true (agent escalation of redaction).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`endpoint`	Yes
`privacy_mode`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.5.4Oct 4, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

addedInput schema / properties / explicit_user_intent

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Required true when privacy_mode=raw or include_gps=true (agent escalation of redaction).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / privacy_mode / description

Previous value: -"Optional per-call privacy override. Defaults to POLAR_PRIVACY_MODE or structured. raw returns upstream Polar JSON. summary minimizes sensitive health and profile details."New value: +"Optional per-call privacy override. Defaults to POLAR_PRIVACY_MODE or structured. raw returns upstream Polar JSON. summary removes GPS/map details."

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

First observedv0.3.6Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the auth scope requirement (profile:read), which is useful context, but says nothing about the privacy_mode escalation path or what the raw mode exposes beyond what the schema already states.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the precondition. Nothing is wasted and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description still leaves sibling selection (polar_profile_get) and the raw-mode escalation behavior unaddressed, which matters for a tool with a privacy-sensitive parameter.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 67%, and the description contributes no parameter information at all. privacy_mode and explicit_user_intent are documented in the schema, but response_format has no description anywhere, and the description does not compensate for that gap or explain how privacy_mode interacts with the scope requirement.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read Polar user account fields') and names the upstream system (AccessLink), so the agent knows this retrieves account-level data. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the close sibling polar_profile_get, leaving a genuine ambiguity about which one to call.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives one real usage signal, the required scope ('Requires profile:read'), which is a prerequisite rather than a when-to-use rule. It offers no guidance on when to prefer this over polar_profile_get, polar_data_inventory, or the privacy-audit tools, so selection is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server