Retrieve recent workout data from WHOOP, including strain score, sport type, heart rate zones, kilojoules, and distance. Filter results by date range and limit.
Get recent WHOOP workouts with strain score, sport type, heart rate zones, kilojoules, and distance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of records to return (default 5, max 25) | |
| end_date | No | ISO 8601 end date filter | |
| start_date | No | ISO 8601 start date filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the kind of data returned, including strain, sport type, heart rate zones, kilojoules, and distance. However, it does not explain ordering, pagination behavior, the meaning of 'recent', or whether any mutation side effects exist, though 'Get' strongly implies read-only.
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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and resource before enumerating the returned fields. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.
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 read-only listing tool with only three optional parameters and a fully documented schema, this description is nearly complete. It names the returned data fields and the resource, and the schema covers parameter semantics. The only notable gaps are ordering and default date-window behavior, but these are minor given the tool's low complexity.
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 input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, including descriptions for limit, end_date, and start_date. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the exact resource ('WHOOP workouts'), and lists concrete data fields (strain score, sport type, heart rate zones, kilojoules, distance). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like get_sleep, get_recovery, and get_cycles because the target resource is explicit.
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?
The description implies this tool should be used when WHOOP workout data is needed, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to any alternative. Since all siblings target different resource types, the intended use is reasonably inferable, but no explicit routing guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.