Skip to main content
Glama
VictorForV

intervals-mcp

by VictorForV
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

list_activities

Returns completed activities within a date range, newest first, with optional filters by activity type and metrics like distance, duration, pace, and training load.

Instructions

Completed activities in a date range, newest first.

    Defaults to the last 30 days. Filter by activity_type such as Run,
    TrailRun, Ride, Swim, Hike, Workout, WeightTraining, Yoga. Each entry
    carries distance, duration, pace, heart rate, elevation, training load
    and the CTL/ATL standing at the time. The response reports how many
    activities matched versus how many were returned.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
newestNo
oldestNo
activity_typeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses sorting, default date range, filtering options, and response contents (distance, duration, etc., and matched vs returned). It does not disclose read-only status, auth needs, or rate limits, but the level of detail is more than minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, with three sentences that front-load the core functionality. It avoids fluff but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters). Overall efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description does a decent job describing the return fields and the matched vs returned count. It lacks explicit details on pagination behavior, limit semantics, and error cases, but is adequate for a simple list operation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for activity_type (gives examples) and implies date range for newest/oldest via the default. However, limit is not mentioned, and date format is not specified. Partial coverage but not comprehensive.

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?

The description clearly states it lists completed activities in a date range, newest first, and mentions filtering by activity type. It distinguishes from single-activity or stream tools by scope, but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it's not perfect.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides usage context (default 30 days, filtering) but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_activity or get_activity_streams. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools