get_workoutFetch a single WHOOP workout by UUID to view activity, duration, strain, and heart-rate details; set raw to true for original API data.
One workout by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw | No | Return WHOOP's raw API objects instead of compact summaries with friendly units. | |
| workout_id | Yes | Workout id (UUID). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no behavioral context beyond annotations, such as error behavior for missing IDs or the effect of the raw parameter on returned data.
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 extremely short, with no wasted words, but it is a fragment that under-specifies rather than concisely covering necessary context. It is front-loaded but lacks structure for an agent needing more than a label.
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 simple retrieval tool with rich schema and annotations, the description is minimally adequate but omits useful context about raw versus compact output and return shape. Since there is no output schema, some return-value context would be expected, and it is absent.
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 description coverage is 100%, so workout_id and raw are fully documented in the schema. The description only repeats 'by id' and does not add meaning beyond the schema, which 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the resource (workout), scope (one), and selection key (id), making the purpose clear enough to distinguish from list-style siblings. It lacks an explicit verb and does not name alternatives like list_workouts, but the intent is unambiguous.
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 on when to use this tool versus list_workouts or other siblings. The description implies retrieval by known ID but does not state prerequisites or when to prefer it over discovery tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.