Intervals MCP

wellness_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch wellness records for a date range from Intervals. Filter by athlete ID to review sleep, fatigue, and mood data alongside training load.

Instructions

List Intervals wellness records 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": "wellness_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

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'inclusive date range' behavior, which is useful, but it does not disclose output format, pagination, or other runtime behavior.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the verb and resource, then clarifies the date-range scope. It contains no filler or redundant 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with complete schema documentation and clear annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could benefit from a mention of what the response contains, but the absence of an output schema is partially offset by the tool's simplicity and the 'list' semantics.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter semantics by specifying that the date range is inclusive, which is not stated in the schema. This helps the agent understand how newest and oldest relate to each other.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('Intervals wellness records'), and the scope (an inclusive date range). It differentiates from sibling tools like activities_list and events_list by naming the wellness resource explicitly.

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 when to use the tool: whenever wellness records in a date range are needed, as opposed to activity or event records. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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

Deploy Server