Skip to main content
Glama
sikcapri

SuperGlookoQuery

by sikcapri
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Pod and CGM sensor changes

get_device_events
Read-only

Retrieve pod and sensor change timestamps in a date range to determine if glucose anomalies align with recent device events, aiding interpretation of unexplained readings.

Instructions

Pod/site changes (e.g. the Omnipod is replaced roughly every 3 days) and CGM sensor changes, as timestamped events, kept as two separate lists.

DEVICE COVERAGE: whether Glooko reports these events at all depends on the device — confirmed empty (never populated, over a full 30-day check) for a CamAPS FX + Ypso Pump account. Both counts being zero can mean this device combination doesn't report site/sensor changes to Glooko in a way this project can see, not that no changes happened — never assert the latter from an empty result.

These are point-in-time markers, not amounts. They are most useful as CONTEXT for nearby glucose disruption: a fresh pod/site can run high for the first hours while the cannula settles, and a new sensor can read erratically while it warms up. Use them to check whether an unexplained high or a run of odd readings lines up with a recent change. Treat any such link as a possible contributing factor, never assert it as the cause.

Times are plain wall clock time (device-local), not UTC.

Returns: podChanges and sensorChanges arrays of wall-clock timestamps, plus a count for each.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endYesRequired. Window end as an ISO 8601 timestamp, e.g. 2026-06-20T00:00:00.000Z — plain wall clock time, same caveat as start (the "Z" is a format artifact, not a UTC claim). Treated as inclusive and must be after start. All timestamps returned by this API are likewise plain wall clock time, unconverted.
startYesRequired. Window start as an ISO 8601 timestamp, e.g. 2026-06-19T00:00:00.000Z. IMPORTANT: despite the trailing "Z", this is plain WALL CLOCK time, not true UTC — Glooko records only the literal date/time the patient's device showed, with no timezone attached. Use the patient's own wall-clock digits directly (no conversion): resolve "yesterday" or "last 3 weeks" straight into the matching wall-clock date and time. Treated as inclusive.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that while adding substantial behavioral context: device-specific coverage limitations, confirmed-empty results for CamAPS FX + Ypso Pump, wall-clock rather than UTC time semantics, and the caution that empty results do not mean no changes occurred.

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 well-structured with labeled sections and every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds coverage caveats, usage guidance, time semantics, and return shape without redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the moderate complexity, absent output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers what the tool returns, how timestamps are represented, device coverage limitations, and how to interpret results. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the input schema already thoroughly documents both start and end parameters, including the wall-clock caveat and inclusivity. The tool description reinforces these points but does not add significant parameter semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as returning pod/site changes and CGM sensor changes as timestamped events in two separate lists. The resource and output shape are specific and distinguish this from the sibling glucose, insulin, and trend tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives strong context for when to use this tool: to check whether unexplained glucose disruption aligns with a recent pod/sensor change, and explicitly warns against asserting causation. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the use case is clearly delineated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools