io.github.hhopke/intervals-icu-mcp

icu_update_activity

Idempotent

Update an existing activity's metadata such as name, type, trainer flag, RPE, or feel. Only fields you provide are changed; all other details remain unchanged.

Instructions

Update an existing activity's metadata (name, type, trainer flag, RPE, feel, etc.).

Only fields you pass are sent; everything else stays unchanged.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`feel`	No	How you felt (1-5 scale)
`name`	No	Updated activity name
`commute`	No	Mark as commute
`trainer`	No	Mark as trainer/indoor workout
`activity_id`	Yes	Activity ID to update
`description`	No	Updated description
`activity_type`	No	Updated activity type (e.g., Ride, Run, Swim)
`perceived_exertion`	No	RPE rating (1-10 scale)

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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and safety (destructiveHint=false). Description adds valuable detail about partial updates and idempotency (only passed fields change), complementing annotations well.

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?

Two concise sentences conveying essential behavior and partial update semantics. No superfluous information.

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?

With 8 parameters, high schema coverage, and output schema existing, the description covers the core logic. Lacks error handling or permission context, but annotations and schema fill gaps.

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 100%, so description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the input schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states 'Update an existing activity's metadata' with specific examples. Distinguishes from sibling tools like icu_update_event or icu_update_gear by focusing on activity metadata.

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?

Provides partial update behavior ('Only fields you pass are sent') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server