Intervals.icu MCP Server

delete_event

Removes an athlete’s Intervals.icu event by event ID to clear outdated or unwanted calendar entries.

Instructions

Delete event for an athlete from Intervals.icu Args: 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
`event_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

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says 'delete'. It does not state whether deletion is permanent or reversible, whether permissions/athlete context are required (no athlete_id parameter is present), or what happens if the event ID is invalid.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core sentence is front-loaded and short, but the 'Args:' docstring block duplicates the schema without adding information, so part of the text does not earn its place.

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?

For a destructive single-parameter tool with no annotations, the definition is under-specified: consequences, error conditions, and the relationship to sibling delete/get tools are all absent. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but nothing else is filled in.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but 'The Intervals.icu event ID' merely restates the parameter name and schema title. It does not explain the ID format or how to obtain a valid event_id (e.g., via get_events or get_event_by_id).

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 and resource: delete an event on Intervals.icu. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling delete_events_by_date_range or explains the single-event vs. range scope.

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 tool versus delete_events_by_date_range, nor any prerequisites such as needing the event to exist or owning the athlete. The agent must infer the selection rule from the name alone.

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