whoop_quickstartGuides users through a personalized 3-step setup to connect WHOOP, adapting to current environment variables, token status, and next required action.
Personalized 3-step setup walkthrough for the human user. Adapts to current state (env vars set? token present? what's next?). Call this first when the user asks 'how do I connect WHOOP?'
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| response_format | No | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.6Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.6.1v0.5.4v0.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations do not: it adapts to current state (env vars set? token present?) and targets the human user, which tells the agent the output is dynamic rather than fixed.
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?
Three short sentences, zero waste, with the purpose and the call trigger front-loaded. Every sentence carries distinct information (what it is, how it behaves, when to call).
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 no-required-param, no-output-schema, read-only walkthrough tool whose annotations already cover the safety profile, the description covers purpose, audience, adaptivity, and invocation timing. The only omission is any hint about what the walkthrough returns or how many steps remain.
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 0% and the description never mentions the response_format parameter. However, the single optional enum (markdown/json) is self-explanatory from its values, so the gap is minor; baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 concrete verb+resource ('Personalized 3-step setup walkthrough') and names the audience ('for the human user'), plus the adaptive behavior. An agent can tell this apart from whoop_onboarding, whoop_get_auth_url, and whoop_exchange_code because it is the entry-point walkthrough rather than a specific step.
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?
Gives an explicit trigger and priority: 'Call this first when the user asks how do I connect WHOOP?' That resolves the ordering against sibling setup tools. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or calling out the specific alternatives, so it is clear context without full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.