Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
WHOOP MCP

WHOOP MCP

by myke239
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_whoop_workouts

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve and page recorded WHOOP workouts, including strain, heart rate, distance, and HR-zone milliseconds, with date filters and pagination.

Instructions

Page recorded workouts, strain, heart rate, distance and HR-zone milliseconds.

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": "list_whoop_workouts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endNo
limitNo
startNo
next_tokenNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only the returned field list; it says nothing about pagination mechanics (limit defaults to 25, next_token continuation), date-range scoping, or result ordering, which are the behaviors that actually matter for a paging tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves the gaps noted in other dimensions rather than being genuinely complete.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a paginated list tool with four undocumented optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent cannot determine acceptable date formats, page-size limits, or how next_token should be used from this definition alone.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so all four parameters (start, end, limit, next_token) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description never mentions date boundaries, page size, or the continuation token, leaving the agent with no guidance on how to call the tool.

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?

The description pairs a clear list verb ("Page") with a specific resource ("recorded workouts") and even enumerates the payload fields (strain, heart rate, distance, HR-zone milliseconds). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular get_whoop_workout, but never explicitly states that it returns many workouts while the sibling returns one.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_whoop_workout, get_whoop_day, or summarize_whoop_period, and no mention of date-window filtering or how to continue paging. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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