io.github.hhopke/intervals-icu-mcp

icu_update_gear_reminder

Idempotent

Update an existing gear maintenance reminder by specifying its gear and reminder IDs. Change reminder text, time alerts, or distance alerts as needed.

Instructions

Update an existing gear maintenance reminder. Only fields you pass are sent.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	No	Updated reminder text
`gear_id`	Yes	ID of the gear item
`athlete_id`	No	Athlete ID (for coaches managing multiple athletes)
`time_alert`	No	Updated time alert in hours
`reminder_id`	Yes	ID of the reminder to update
`distance_alert`	No	Updated distance alert in kilometers

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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the partial-update behavior ('only fields you pass are sent'), which is genuinely beyond the annotations, but it omits permission needs, error behavior, and whether omitted fields are preserved.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the patch-semantics caveat immediately following. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description need not explain return values. Combined with 100% schema coverage, it is nearly complete for a low-complexity mutation tool, missing only auth/permission context.

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 description coverage is 100% and documents all six parameters with types and units (hours, kilometers), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond the patch-semantics note, which matches the baseline 3 for fully documented schemas.

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?

States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing gear maintenance reminder'), making the target unmistakable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling icu_create_gear_reminder or icu_update_gear, so it clears the bar for clarity but not sibling differentiation.

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?

"Only fields you pass are sent" conveys partial-update (patch) semantics, which implies how to use the tool, but no when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternatives are given. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server