Check which Intervals.icu integrations are implemented, configured, and live-verified to know what actions are available.
Describe implemented/configured/live-verified integration capabilities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| coverage | Yes | ||
| warnings | No | ||
| pagination | No | ||
| request_id | No | ||
| schema_version | No | 1.0 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds 'live-verified' context, suggesting the tool performs active verification rather than returning a static list, and 'describe' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not clarify potential side effects, failure behavior, or whether verification could be slow or require connectivity.
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 a single, tightly written sentence with no filler. It packs the key scoping qualifiers ('implemented', 'configured', 'live-verified') into minimal space, and every word earns its place.
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 low complexity (zero parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient for invoking the tool correctly. However, it omits any scenario-level guidance about when capability discovery is relevant, which is a minor completeness gap.
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?
The tool has zero parameters diagnostic an empty input schema, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details. Baseline 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to compensate for.
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 uses a clear verb ('Describe') and a specific resource ('integration capabilities'), further scoped by 'implemented/configured/live-verified.' It distinguishes itself from sibling data-access tools by focusing on capability discovery rather than domain data like activities or 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?
No guidance is provided about when to call this tool versus siblings, when it should be used in a workflow, or whether it is meant as an initial discovery step. The description only states what the tool does, not the conditions that make it the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.