get_profileRetrieve your WHOOP profile and body measurements—name, email, height, weight, max heart rate—for read-only use in MCP clients.
The user's WHOOP profile (name, email) and body measurements (height, weight, max heart rate).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description still adds real value by disclosing what the call returns (profile identity fields plus body measurements), which matters because no output schema exists. It does not mention auth scope or whether values can be stale, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the returned data is the first and only thing stated. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs reordering.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description's main job is to convey what comes back, and it does so by listing the identity and body-measurement fields. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only minor omissions around data freshness and auth scope.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no argument surface the description needs to explain. Nothing in the description misrepresents or over-promises on inputs.
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 names the specific resource (the user's WHOOP profile) and enumerates its contents (name, email, height, weight, max heart rate), so an agent can immediately tell this apart from the cycle/sleep/recovery/workout siblings. The retrieval verb comes from the name and title rather than the description text itself, which keeps it just short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: because every sibling covers a different resource (daily overview, trends, cycles, sleeps, workouts), an agent can infer this is the tool for static account/body data. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no named alternative or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.