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 full burden. It mentions the tool fetches 'detailed information' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements (beyond optional parameters), rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' includes. The optional parameters hint at fallback to environment variables, but this is insufficient for a mutation-free tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are clear and necessary given low schema coverage, with no redundant information. However, the structure could be slightly improved by separating purpose from args more distinctly.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context (e.g., authentication, error cases), leaving gaps for a tool with three parameters and sibling alternatives.

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 explains all three parameters: 'event_id' as the event ID, 'athlete_id' as optional with fallback to ATHLETE_ID from .env, and 'api_key' as optional with fallback to API_KEY from .env. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover format details (e.g., ID structure).

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: 'Get detailed information for a specific event from Intervals.icu'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('event'), and scope ('specific'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_events' (which likely lists multiple events).

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 'get_events' (for listing events) or 'get_activity_details' (for activity data), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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