Intervals.icu MCP Server

List gear

list_gear

Read-only

Retrieve every gear item registered for an athlete, including bikes and shoes, so you can identify equipment used across training activities.

Instructions

List all gear (bikes, shoes, etc.) for the athlete.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_gear"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of pagination, result size, whether retired/inactive gear is included, or that it is scoped to the authenticated athlete (leaving that to inference).

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and the scope trailing. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-parameter read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is sufficient to call it correctly and even sketches the return contents ('bikes, shoes, etc.'). It stops just short of noting athlete scoping/auth and whether all gear or only active gear is returned.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to explain or omit.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Clear verb + resource ('List all gear') with concrete examples (bikes, shoes) and an explicit scope ('for the athlete'). No sibling tool covers gear, so there is nothing to confuse it with, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the get_/list_ activity and event family.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'for the athlete' signals it returns the authenticated athlete's equipment, and there are no alternative gear tools to route between. No when-not conditions or prerequisites (e.g., auth/scope requirements) are given.

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