get_profileRetrieve the authenticated WHOOP user's name and email address from the WHOOP API.
The authenticated user's name and email.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | |||
| last_name | Yes | ||
| first_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only reveals the returned fields. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether any authentication or scopes are required, or what happens on missing/expired credentials. With an output schema present the return-shape detail is largely redundant anyway.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler or redundancy, and it is front-loaded. It is a sentence fragment rather than a full statement of the action, which keeps it just short of ideal.
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?
For a zero-parameter getter with an output schema documenting the response, the description is nearly sufficient — an agent knows it fetches the current user's identity fields. It would be complete with one clause noting read-only behavior, since no annotations exist to convey that.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. Nothing in the text misdescribes the (empty) input contract.
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 names the resource and its exact contents ('the authenticated user's name and email'), which combined with the verb in the tool name makes the operation unambiguous. It is clearly separable from all siblings, which deal with recovery, sleep, cycles, workouts, and body measurements. It falls short of a 5 only because it describes the payload rather than restating the retrieval action.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the authenticated-user scoping constraint as guidance. For a zero-argument profile getter the omission is low-risk, but no usage guidance is actually provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.