Intervals MCP

activities_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve cycling activities from Intervals within a specified inclusive date range using an optional athlete ID.

Instructions

List Intervals activities in an inclusive date range.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "newest": "<newest>",
      "oldest": "<oldest>"
    },
    "name": "activities_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`newest`	Yes	Calendar date in YYYY-MM-DD format
`oldest`	Yes	Calendar date in YYYY-MM-DD format
`athleteId`	No	Intervals athlete ID; defaults to 0

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the inclusive date-range behavior, which is useful, but doesn't disclose pagination, ordering, or default athleteId behavior beyond the schema.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes the key scoping detail ('inclusive date range'). No wasted words.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, it doesn't mention pagination, result ordering, or the optional athleteId behavior, which an agent might need to know for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds the 'inclusive date range' semantics, which clarifies the boundary behavior of newest/oldest, but doesn't add detail beyond that.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Intervals activities') with a clear scope ('in an inclusive date range'). It distinguishes from siblings like activity_get (single activity) and wellness_list/events_list (different resources), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

The description implies usage for listing activities within a date range, and the sibling names suggest alternatives, but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over activity_get or other list tools. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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

Deploy Server