Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
oura-mcp-server-enhanced

oura-mcp-server-enhanced

by josuhr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_vo2_max

Retrieve VO2 max estimates for a specified date range to evaluate cardiovascular fitness level.

Instructions

Get VO2 max estimates indicating cardiovascular fitness level.

Args:
    start_date: Start date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Defaults to yesterday.
    end_date: End date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Defaults to today.

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_vo2_max"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
end_dateNo
start_dateNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, placing full burden on the description. It discloses only parameter defaults (yesterday/today) but omits any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no data exists. The description is minimal.

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 extremely concise: one-sentence purpose plus two parameter definitions. No wasted words, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers basic usage. However, it lacks explanation of return values (though output schema exists) and does not address scope or boundaries. It is minimally adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Despite schema description coverage being 0%, the description adds meaning to both parameters: format (YYYY-MM-DD) and defaults (yesterday/today). This compensates well for the schema gap, providing necessary usage context.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves VO2 max estimates indicating cardiovascular fitness level. The verb 'Get' and resource 'VO2 max estimates' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_daily_cardiovascular_age, though the name and context make the purpose distinct.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_daily_cardiovascular_age or get_daily_readiness. The description solely states what it does, without context for selection.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools