Withings MCP

Withings Weekly Wellness Review

withings_weekly_summary

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a weekly scorecard from Withings data covering sleep, activity, body measures, bottlenecks, and recommended actions. Read-only and non-medical.

Instructions

Build a weekly Withings scorecard with sleep, activity, body measures, bottlenecks and actions. Read-only and non-medical.

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_weekly_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No	Recent analysis window in days.
`timezone`	No	IANA timezone used only for display, e.g. America/New_York.	UTC
`compare_days`	No	Prior comparison window in days. Use 0 to disable comparison.
`response_format`	No		markdown

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	Yes
`generated_at`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.6Jun 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds non-medical disclaimer and summarizes the content, providing extra behavioral context 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. No unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points.

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?

Given the presence of output schema and annotations, the description is adequate but lacks guidance on when to prefer this over related siblings. It does not explain how the scorecard is generated or any limitations.

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?

Schema description coverage is 75%, with all four parameters having descriptions. The tool description does not add further parameter-specific details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it builds a weekly scorecard including sleep, activity, body measures, bottlenecks, and actions. It uses a specific verb 'build' and resource 'weekly scorecard', distinguishing it from daily summary or other tools.

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 mentions 'Read-only and non-medical' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like withings_daily_summary. No guidance on when not to use or preferred contexts.

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