Export Oura sleep, daily, temperature, and tag data into CSV files for a specified date range, writing them to a chosen directory on your local disk.
Write CSVs (sleep, daily, temperature, tags) for a date range into a directory under your home folder. Local disk only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dir | Yes | Target directory under your home folder, e.g. ~/oura-data | |
| 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, so the description carries the full burden. It does state the main side effect—writing local files—and restricts scope to local disk, which is valuable, but it does not say whether existing files are overwritten, whether the directory must exist, or what the tool returns.
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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every part contributes useful information: data type coverage, date range scope, output destination, and the local-disk boundary.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and minimal start/end descriptions, the tool is not fully specified. An agent still cannot know the expected date format, whether files or directories are created/overwritten, or how success is indicated.
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?
Schema coverage is only 33%, but the description does not compensate for the undocumented start/end parameters. It adds only the generic idea of a date range and otherwise restates what the schema says about the target directory.
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 explicitly states a concrete action and output: writing CSVs for specific data types (sleep, daily, temperature, tags) into a local directory for a date range. The local-disk-only qualifier clearly separates it from the sibling data-query tools like oura_daily and oura_sleep_periods.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this export tool versus the named sibling tools. The reader can infer the export use case, but there are no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.