WHOOP MCP Server

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific resources like cycles, sleep, workouts, recovery, and authentication. However, there is some potential overlap between collection tools (e.g., whoop-get-cycle-collection and whoop-get-recovery-collection) and their cycle-specific counterparts (e.g., whoop-get-recovery-for-cycle), which could cause minor confusion in selection.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with the prefix 'whoop-' and clear action-object naming (e.g., whoop-get-cycle-by-id, whoop-refresh-token). The naming is uniform across all 16 tools, making them predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count4/5
With 16 tools, the count is slightly high but reasonable for a fitness/health API server covering authentication, user data, cycles, sleep, workouts, and recovery. It provides comprehensive coverage without being overly bloated, though it borders on the upper limit of typical scoping.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core CRUD-like operations for key resources (cycles, sleep, workouts, recovery) and includes essential authentication flows (OAuth, token management). Minor gaps exist, such as lack of update or delete operations for user data or workout records, but agents can likely work around these for most use cases.
Average 3.1/5 across 16 of 16 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the core function but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the access token enables. For a security-sensitive OAuth tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place.
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?
Given the complexity of OAuth token exchange and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., token structure, expiration), error handling, or security implications, which are essential for proper agent usage in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'code' documented as 'Authorization code from OAuth callback'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it only restates the schema's purpose without elaborating on format, source, or validation. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the action ('Exchange') and the resources involved ('authorization code for access token'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'whoop-get-authorization-url' (which provides the code) and 'whoop-refresh-token' (which uses a refresh token), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an authorization code from OAuth callback), exclusions, or contextual triggers, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieval but doesn't specify if it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the response format might be. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with an API.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like authentication needs or response format, which are crucial for a tool that likely fetches data from an external service. More context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'cycleId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as format details or examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('cycle for the specified ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'whoop-get-cycle-collection' or 'whoop-get-recovery-for-cycle', which also involve cycles, so it lacks sibling distinction for a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'whoop-get-cycle-collection' for multiple cycles or 'whoop-get-recovery-for-cycle' for related data. It only states what it does, without context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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 states the action ('Get') but does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or describes the return format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'recovery data' entails, the response format, or any behavioral traits like error handling. For a tool with no structured support, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'cycleId' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format details or examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('recovery data for a specific cycle'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'whoop-get-recovery-collection' or 'whoop-get-cycle-by-id', which might also involve recovery or cycle data, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'whoop-get-recovery-collection' for multiple cycles or 'whoop-get-cycle-by-id' for general cycle data. It lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation ('Get'), which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.
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 retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about what information is returned, authentication requirements, and how this tool differs from sibling sleep tools. The current description is too minimal given the lack of structured metadata about behavior and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'sleepId' fully documented in the schema as 'ID of the sleep record to retrieve'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('sleep record') with specific targeting ('for the specified ID'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'whoop-get-sleep-collection' or 'whoop-get-sleep-for-cycle', which would require a 5.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'whoop-get-sleep-collection' (for multiple records) or 'whoop-get-sleep-for-cycle' (for cycle-specific sleep). It simply states what the tool does without context about when it's appropriate versus other sleep-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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 states it 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the returned data structure looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.
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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'sleep data' includes, how it's structured, or any prerequisites like authentication. For a data retrieval tool in a family with many similar tools, more context is needed to guide proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'cycleId' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what a 'cycle' represents or valid ID ranges. With high schema coverage, 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('sleep data for a specific cycle'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'whoop-get-sleep-by-id' or 'whoop-get-sleep-collection', which likely retrieve sleep data in different ways.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like 'whoop-get-sleep-by-id' and 'whoop-get-sleep-collection', it's unclear if this is for retrieving sleep data by cycle ID specifically, or if other tools might be more appropriate in different contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a workout record but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential API constraints.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every element contributing to clarity.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs or response structure, leaving gaps for a tool that likely interacts with an external API and returns data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'workoutId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying retrieval by ID, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for any gaps.
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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('workout record'), specifying retrieval by ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'whoop-get-workout-collection' by focusing on a single record rather than a collection, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'whoop-get-workout-collection' for multiple workouts or other ID-based tools like 'whoop-get-cycle-by-id'. The description implies usage for retrieving a specific workout but offers no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions pagination behavior. It lacks critical details: authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, response format, or whether it's read-only. 'Get' implies read-only, but this isn't explicitly stated, leaving gaps for a tool with 4 parameters.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads key information: action, resource, and pagination. There's no wasted verbiage, and it directly addresses the core functionality without redundancy.
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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits authentication needs, response structure, error cases, and usage context. While concise, it fails to provide the completeness needed for effective agent operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying date-range filtering via 'paginated' context. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.
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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('all workout records for a user'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'whoop-get-workout-by-id' by specifying collection vs. single record retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other collection tools like 'whoop-get-cycle-collection' beyond the resource type.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare to other collection tools, or specify use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Set' implies a mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this persists across sessions, affects all subsequent API calls, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. For a security-sensitive tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves critical behavior undocumented.
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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given this is a security/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Set' actually means operationally (e.g., session persistence, scope), what happens on success/failure, or how this interacts with other authentication tools. For a tool that manages API credentials, this minimal description leaves too much undefined.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'accessToken' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
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 clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('access token for API calls'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'whoop-exchange-code-for-token' or 'whoop-refresh-token' by focusing on manual token setting rather than token acquisition or refresh operations. However, it doesn't specify what API calls it affects or the scope of the setting.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a token from another source), when this should be used instead of automated token exchange/refresh tools, or what happens if the token is invalid. With multiple authentication-related siblings, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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 mentions pagination, which is useful, but lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the structure of returned data. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get all sleep records for a user') and includes a key behavioral trait ('paginated'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and pagination but lacks details on authentication, data format, or error handling. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful for the agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or edge cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all sleep records for a user'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'whoop-get-sleep-by-id' or 'whoop-get-sleep-for-cycle', which target specific records rather than collections.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions pagination but doesn't specify scenarios where this collection tool is preferred over sibling tools like 'whoop-get-sleep-by-id' or 'whoop-get-sleep-for-cycle', leaving the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient, as critical behavioral traits are missing.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without redundancy. It front-loads the key action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word contributes to understanding, with no wasted text.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values look like (e.g., data structure, units), authentication needs, or potential errors. For a data retrieval tool in a health/fitness context, more detail on output and behavior is warranted.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it doesn't add unnecessary information.
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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('body measurements for the authenticated user'), specifying the data types (height, weight, max heart rate). It distinguishes from siblings like 'whoop-get-user-profile' by focusing on body measurements rather than general profile data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication status), compare to similar tools like 'whoop-get-user-profile', or specify use cases. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('revoke') but does not explain effects (e.g., whether this invalidates the token permanently, requires re-authorization, or impacts other sessions). No details on authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling are included, leaving significant gaps.
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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes directly to explaining the tool's purpose, earning a perfect score for efficiency.
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?
Given the complexity of a token revocation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., what happens after revocation), error cases, or integration with sibling tools, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it could have mentioned implicit context (e.g., token revocation based on current session). Baseline is 4 due to zero parameters.
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 clearly states the action ('revoke') and the resource ('access token granted by the user'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'whoop-refresh-token' or 'whoop-set-access-token', which prevents a perfect score.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'whoop-refresh-token' for renewing access or 'whoop-set-access-token' for setting a new token). The description implies usage for revoking tokens but lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios, such as after user logout or security concerns.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination, which is useful, but fails to describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the structure of returned data (e.g., what fields are included in cycles). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get all physiological cycles for a user') and adds a key behavioral trait ('paginated') without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence provides value, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with four parameters and pagination. It adequately states the purpose but lacks details on authentication, response format, error cases, or usage context relative to siblings. This is minimally viable but has clear gaps in providing a full operational picture.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all four parameters (limit, start, end, nextToken). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying date-range filtering via 'paginated', which is already covered by the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('Get all physiological cycles') and resource ('for a user'), with the additional detail 'paginated' indicating the response format. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'whoop-get-cycle-by-id' by specifying collection vs. single item retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like 'whoop-get-recovery-collection'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving multiple cycles rather than a single one, which differentiates it from 'whoop-get-cycle-by-id'. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other collection tools (e.g., 'whoop-get-sleep-collection'), prerequisites (e.g., authentication), or exclusions (e.g., no filtering by user ID).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination, which is a key behavioral trait not implied by the schema, but it does not cover other aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The description adds some value but is incomplete for a tool with no annotations.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get all recovery data for a user') and includes an important behavioral note ('paginated') without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and structured for clarity.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and pagination but lacks details on authentication, error cases, or output format, which are important for a data retrieval tool. It is adequate but has clear gaps in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the parameters. The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters or default behaviors. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('all recovery data for a user'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'whoop-get-recovery-for-cycle', which might fetch recovery data for a specific cycle rather than all data, leaving some ambiguity in sibling distinction.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'whoop-get-recovery-for-cycle' for cycle-specific data or other collection tools. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool refreshes an access token, implying a mutation (token update) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to the old token. For a security-sensitive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Refresh access token using refresh token'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the complexity (security-sensitive token refresh), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., new access token, expiry), error handling, or dependencies on other tools. For a tool with no structured safety or output information, the description should provide more context to guide effective use.
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?
The description adds meaning by clarifying that the 'refreshToken' parameter is used 'for getting new access token', which aligns with the schema's 100% coverage (the schema already describes it as 'Refresh token to use for getting new access token'). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description reinforces the parameter's purpose, earning a slightly higher score. Since there's only one parameter, the description adequately supports it.
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 clearly states the action ('Refresh') and resource ('access token'), specifying it uses a refresh token. It distinguishes from siblings like 'whoop-exchange-code-for-token' (initial token acquisition) and 'whoop-set-access-token' (manual token setting), but doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific and actionable, though sibling differentiation could be more explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when an access token needs refreshing, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'whoop-exchange-code-for-token' (for initial tokens) or 'whoop-set-access-token' (for manual setting). It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., having a valid refresh token) or exclusions. Usage context is implied but not detailed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details such as whether this initiates user interaction, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. For an OAuth-related tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, for an OAuth authorization tool, it could benefit from additional context such as what the URL is used for or next steps in the flow, leaving some gaps in completeness.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters, aligning with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('authorization URL for OAuth flow'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'whoop-exchange-code-for-token', but the distinction is implied by the OAuth flow sequence (URL first, then token exchange).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage in an OAuth flow context, suggesting it should be called before token exchange. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like direct token setting or refresh, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions authentication but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, or response format. It's a read operation, but details on what 'basic' entails beyond name and email are vague.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose without waste. It uses minimal words to convey the essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It doesn't explain the return format or potential limitations, which could be helpful for an AI agent despite the low complexity.
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?
There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information.
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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('basic user profile information') with specific fields mentioned (name, email). It distinguishes from siblings like whoop-get-body-measurements by focusing on profile data rather than biometrics, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'for the authenticated user,' suggesting it's for retrieving current user data. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus other user-related tools or prerequisites beyond authentication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![whoop-mcp-server-claude MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nissand/whoop-mcp-server-claude/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nissand/whoop-mcp-server-claude)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![whoop-mcp-server-claude MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nissand/whoop-mcp-server-claude/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nissand/whoop-mcp-server-claude)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/nissand/whoop-mcp-server-claude'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server