Intervals.icu MCP Server

get_activity_details

Retrieve detailed information for a specific Intervals.icu activity using its activity ID.

Instructions

Get detailed information for a specific activity from Intervals.icu

Args:
    activity_id: The Intervals.icu activity 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": {
      "activity_id": "<activity_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_activity_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`activity_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, the description bears the full disclosure burden, and it says nothing beyond the resource name. It does not indicate this is a read-only fetch, whether it requires athlete scoping/permissions, whether it is expensive (full activity detail may be large), or how it relates to the interval/stream endpoints.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the core statement comes first and the args block adds the one piece of parameter context. The Args formatting is slightly ceremonial for a single parameter but not wasteful enough to penalize heavily.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and one required param keeps the interface simple. What is missing is the differentiating context — what 'detailed information' actually covers versus the interval, stream, and best-efforts siblings — which is exactly the ambiguity an agent would hit.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does identify activity_id as an Intervals.icu activity ID (useful domain hint) but not its format or where to obtain it. For a single required parameter this is minimally adequate, no more.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed information for a specific activity') and names the source system, so the basic operation is clear. But 'detailed information' is vague against siblings like get_activity_intervals, get_activity_streams, and get_activity_best_efforts — nothing in the description says what this detail view contains that those do not.

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 guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though the sibling list contains at least five other activity-scoped retrieval tools. The agent must infer that this is the general-purpose entry point (or not) on its own.

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