Retrieve a compact daily health summary including readiness, sleep, activity, stress, SpO2, heart rate, HRV, and temperature deviation for a date range, enabling quick wellness tracking and analysis.
Compact daily table: readiness score, sleep score, activity score and steps, stress summary, SpO2 average, nightly lowest HR, average HRV, temperature deviation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | Yes | ||
| start | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided托, and the description does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, how date boundaries are handled, or what the returned table structure actually looks like. It mostly restates output metrics rather than explaining tool behavior.
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?
The description is a single compact, front-loaded sentence with a clear list of metricsches. No filler or redundancy; it efficiently conveys the payload content.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not give enough context for correct invocation. It omits date semantics, parameter meaning, return format, and any edge cases that an agent would need to know.
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 schema has two required parameters, start and end, but the description never mentions that these are date-range boundaries, what format they expect, or how they affect the table. With 0% schema coverageencyclopedia, the description needed to compensate but did not.
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 clearly identifies a daily Oura summary table and enumerates the included metrics (readiness, sleep, activity, steps, SpO2, HRV, temperature), so an agent can tell what this endpoint returns. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', but the resource and content are unambiguous.
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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like oura_status, oura_temperature_shifts, or oura_export. The word 'daily' implies a date-related use case, but the description does not explain scope, filtering, or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.