Intervals.icu MCP Server

delete_custom_item

Remove a custom item from an athlete's Intervals.icu account by item ID, keeping their custom data current and clean.

Instructions

Delete a custom item for an athlete from Intervals.icu

Args:
    item_id: The custom item ID to delete

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": {
      "item_id": "<item_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_custom_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`item_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects of this destructive operation. It also doesn't say whether deletion is permanent or how failures are reported.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the operation, with no filler. The 'Args:' block duplicates the schema and is slightly redundant, but doesn't harm readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values are covered, but for a destructive mutation with no annotations the description should address safety and side effects. Instead it leaves the agent without enough behavioral context to invoke confidently.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single parameter, and the description only restates 'The custom item ID to delete' without adding format, source, or acquisition guidance (e.g., obtain via get_custom_items). It adds essentially nothing beyond the schema field name.

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 and resource ('Delete a custom item') plus the owning entity ('for an athlete from Intervals.icu'), which clearly separates it from siblings like delete_event or update_custom_item. The purpose is unmistakable, though it offers no elaboration beyond the operation itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as update_custom_item or get_custom_items, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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