Withings MCP Capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=true/false, establishing safety. The description adds behavioral context—that the tool explains capabilities—which aligns with annotations and provides scope without contradiction.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key topics. Every word contributes meaning, with no waste or redundancy.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (not shown), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose: explaining supported data, privacy boundaries, workflow, and project links. It is complete for a capabilities overview tool without needing to detail return values.

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?

The single parameter (response_format) has a clear enum and default. While schema description coverage is 0%, the parameter's meaning is self-evident. The description does not add detail beyond the schema, but no additional semantics are needed.

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?

The description clearly states the tool explains supported Withings data, privacy boundaries, recommended agent workflow, and project links. This verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific data retrieval or actions.

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?

The description implies this tool is for an overview of capabilities, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternative tools like withings_data_inventory or withings_privacy_audit. No when-not or alternatives are provided.

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