Intervals.icu MCP Server

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 this is a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't clarify if deletions are permanent, reversible, or require specific permissions. It mentions optional parameters falling back to .env variables, which is useful context, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or what 'events' encompass (e.g., workouts, races).

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a bullet-point-like 'Args:' section that efficiently documents parameters. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or vague phrasing. It could be slightly more concise by integrating parameter details into the main description, but it's already front-loaded and readable.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation, 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces need to explain return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permanence of deletions, error cases) and usage guidelines relative to siblings. For a deletion tool with no annotations, more safety and context details would be beneficial.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds significant value by explaining all four parameters: 'athlete_id' and 'api_key' are optional with fallbacks to .env, and 'start_date' and 'end_date' specify the range in YYYY-MM-DD format. This clarifies semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail validation rules or interdependencies.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Delete events for an athlete from Intervals.icu in the specified date range.' This specifies the verb (delete), resource (events), and scope (for an athlete, from Intervals.icu, within a date range). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_event' (singular vs. range-based deletion).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'delete_event' (for single events) or 'get_events' (for viewing events), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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