coros-training-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Authenticate Coros Mobile

authenticate_coros_mobile

Authenticate with the Coros mobile API and store a mobile token to access sleep phase data (deep, light, REM, awake) that the Training Hub web API does not provide.

Instructions

Authenticate with the Coros mobile API only and store the mobile token.

This is needed for sleep data (deep/light/REM/awake phases) which is only available through the mobile API (apieu.coros.com), not the Training Hub web API.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "email": "<email>",
      "password": "<password>"
    },
    "name": "authenticate_coros_mobile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes	Coros account email address.
`region`	No	"eu" (default) or "us".	eu
`password`	Yes	Coros account password (plain text — encrypted before sending).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Oct 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key behaviours: it targets apieu.coros.com only and it persists a mobile token as a side effect. It does not cover token lifetime/expiry, what happens to an existing token on re-auth, or failure modes (bad credentials, region mismatch), which matters for a credential-accepting tool.

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, zero waste, and the scope constraint ('mobile API only') is front-loaded before the rationale. Nothing to trim.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema and the inputs by a fully described schema, so the remaining burden on the description is purpose and prerequisites, which it meets. A brief note on token persistence/expiry and how it relates to check_coros_auth would complete it.

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 100%, so email, password, and region (including the eu/us enum-like default) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('authenticate with the Coros mobile API') plus an explicit side effect ('store the mobile token'), and differentiates itself from the web-API path named in the sibling set (authenticate_coros / Training Hub). An agent can tell exactly which auth flow this is without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a concrete condition for use: sleep-phase data is only reachable via the mobile API, so this auth is required for that data. It names the excluded alternative (Training Hub web API) but never names the sibling tool authenticate_coros explicitly, leaving the agent to map the concept to the tool name.

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