coros-training-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Daily Metrics

get_daily_metrics

Retrieve nightly HRV and daily Coros metrics—resting heart rate, training load, and fatigue—for a configurable 1–24 week range to track recovery and training trends.

Instructions

Retrieve nightly HRV and daily metrics from Coros for a configurable time range (up to 24 weeks).

Uses the /analyse/dayDetail/query endpoint which returns daily records including HRV, resting heart rate, training load, and fatigue rate.

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": "get_daily_metrics"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`weeks`	No	Number of weeks to fetch (1–24). Default: 4.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Oct 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the endpoint and returned fields (HRV, resting heart rate, training load, fatigue rate) but omits auth requirements, rate limits, and whether it is explicitly read-only, leaving notable gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by endpoint details; no wasted words. The structure efficiently conveys the essential information.

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 read-only retrieval tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is fetched, the time range, and the returned fields. It could mention authentication requirements to be fully complete, but the gap is minor.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of a configurable time range (up to 24 weeks) aligns with the schema but adds no additional syntax or format detail beyond it, consistent with baseline 3 when schema coverage is high.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb (Retrieve) and resource (nightly HRV and daily metrics from Coros) with a specific time range. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_sleep_data, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

Usage is implied by the time-range focus and endpoint mention, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_sleep_data or list_activities.

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