io.github.hhopke/intervals-icu-mcp

icu_get_fitness_chart

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch daily CTL, ATL, and TSB values for past and future dates, including projected training load from planned workouts.

Instructions

Fetch the Performance Management Chart time-series — daily CTL, ATL, and TSB.

Returns past history plus future projections from planned calendar workouts. Use for: "show my fitness chart", "CTL trend last 90 days", "projected form at end of my block", "what will my TSB be in 3 weeks". NOT for: today's training recommendations (icu_get_fitness_summary), HRV/sleep/ recovery trends (icu_get_wellness_data), or one day's full wellness record (icu_get_wellness_for_date).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`days_back`	Yes	Number of days before today to include (inclusive)
`athlete_id`	No	Athlete ID (for coaches managing multiple athletes)
`days_ahead`	Yes	Number of days after today to include (inclusive); use 0 for history only

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. Description adds that it returns both past history and future projections from planned calendar workouts, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Description is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses bullet-like structure for examples. No unnecessary sentences.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the output schema exists, description adequately covers the return values (daily CTL, ATL, TSB) and scope (history + projections). No gaps for an agent to understand the tool's output.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage on parameter descriptions; description does not elaborate further on parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already handles meaning, and description provides usage context but no additional parameter semantics.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states the tool fetches a Performance Management Chart time-series with daily CTL, ATL, and TSB. It includes specific verb 'fetch' and resource, and distinguishes from siblings via explicit NOT-for sections.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit use-case examples are given (e.g., 'show my fitness chart', 'CTL trend last 90 days') and clear alternatives are stated (icu_get_fitness_summary, icu_get_wellness_data, icu_get_wellness_for_date), providing both when-to-use and when-not-to-use.

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

Deploy Server