Withings MCP

Withings MCP Capabilities

withings_capabilities

Read-onlyIdempotent

Discover which Withings data types are accessible, understand privacy boundaries, and review recommended agent workflows and project links to guide your integration.

Instructions

Explain supported Withings data, privacy boundaries, recommended agent workflow and project links.

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": "withings_capabilities"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`response_format`	No		markdown

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`links`	Yes
`creator`	Yes
`project`	Yes
`mcp_name`	Yes
`auth_model`	Yes
`unofficial`	Yes
`api_boundary`	Yes
`privacy_modes`	Yes
`client_aliases`	Yes
`supported_data`	Yes
`contribution_paths`	Yes
`recommended_agent_flow`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.4.11Jul 30, 2026
Removedv0.4.8Jul 17, 2026
First observedv0.4.6Jun 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about explaining data, privacy, and workflow, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb 'Explain' and includes all key elements: data, privacy boundaries, workflow, and links. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple informational tool with a single optional parameter and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does. It could optionally mention that it is for the agent to understand capabilities, but it is already complete enough for its purpose.

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?

The only parameter ('response_format') is an enum with values 'markdown' and 'json', and it is self-explanatory from its name and enum values. Although schema description coverage is 0%, the parameter is trivial, and the description does not need to elaborate further. The description adds marginal value over the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Explain supported Withings data, privacy boundaries, recommended agent workflow and project links.' It uses a specific verb ('Explain') and resource ('capabilities'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on specific data or actions.

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 implies usage for understanding the tool's capabilities and context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It meets the minimum viable standard but lacks explicit guidance.

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