Intervals.icu MCP Server

delete_event

Remove an event from an athlete's Intervals.icu calendar using the event ID.

Instructions

Delete event for an athlete from Intervals.icu Args: athlete_id: The Intervals.icu athlete ID (optional, will use ATHLETE_ID from .env if not provided) api_key: The Intervals.icu API key (optional, will use API_KEY from .env if not provided) event_id: The Intervals.icu event ID

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": {
      "event_id": "<event_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`api_key`	No
`event_id`	Yes
`athlete_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the deletion action and parameter fallback behavior, but does not disclose irreversibility, side effects, authorization requirements, error behavior, or what the response contains.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a terse Args block. Each line earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

This is a simple three-parameter delete operation with an output schema present, so the action and parameter list are largely sufficient. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from delete_events_by_date_range and does not provide behavioral caveats such as permanence or failure behavior, making it adequate but not complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by documenting all three parameters. It adds useful semantics, especially the .env fallback for athlete_id and api_key and the required nature of event_id, though it does not elaborate on ID formats or constraints.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Delete event for an athlete from Intervals.icu.' It implies deleting a single event by event_id, which distinguishes it from sibling delete_events_by_date_range, but it does not explicitly name or contrast that alternative.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention that this tool is for deleting a single event versus using delete_events_by_date_range for bulk deletion, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.

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