Fetch daily Oura resilience levels and contributors, including sleep recovery, daytime recovery, and stress, to monitor recovery capacity and stress impact.
Get daily resilience data. Returns resilience level and contributors like sleep recovery, daytime recovery, and stress.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | No | ||
| next_token | No | ||
| start_date | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses what the response contains (resilience level and contributors), but omits pagination behavior despite a next_token parameter, says nothing about date-range defaults, and gives no indication of auth or rate limits.
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?
Two tightly written sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the return contents summarized in the second. Little waste, though the second sentence could have instead spent space on the date/pagination semantics that are actually missing.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description's summary of return values is genuinely useful, but for a paginated date-range list tool with three undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description leaves key invocation details (range semantics, paging) unstated.
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 0% and there are three parameters (start_date, end_date, next_token), none of which the description explains. Date format, whether the range is inclusive, and how next_token is used are all undocumented in both the schema and the description.
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 a specific verb and resource ('Get daily resilience data') and even previews the payload (resilience level, sleep/daytime recovery, stress contributors). It does not, however, distinguish this range/list tool from the sibling get_daily_resilience_by_id, which an agent also sees.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus the many sibling daily-metric tools (daily stress, readiness, sleep) or versus get_daily_resilience_by_id. The date-range nature of the call is left entirely for the agent to infer from the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.