Intervals.icu MCP Server

get_athlete_profile

Retrieves the signed-in athlete's identity and physiology basics—name, sex, weight, resting heart rate, timezone, units, and location—for profile-aware coaching and analysis.

Instructions

Get the signed-in athlete's profile from Intervals.icu.

Returns identity and physiology basics (name, sex, weight, resting HR,
timezone, units, location). For per-sport FTP / zones / thresholds use
get_sport_settings instead.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_athlete_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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. It implies a read-only lookup via 'Get' and scopes exactly which fields come back, but says nothing about authentication failure behavior, data freshness, or the fact that it always targets the signed-in account with no override.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The field enumeration is compact and the sibling routing appears exactly where it is needed, with no filler language.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation isn't owed, yet the description still summarizes the key fields an agent should expect. For a no-param read tool this is nearly complete; only the behavior when no athlete is signed in is unaddressed.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing the description could add on that front. The description does implicitly confirm the implicit subject ('signed-in athlete') that the absent athlete_id parameter would otherwise raise.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the signed-in athlete's profile') and enumerates the concrete data returned (name, sex, weight, resting HR, timezone, units, location). It also explicitly separates itself from the closest sibling by naming get_sport_settings for FTP/zones/thresholds.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear routing guidance: use this for athlete identity/physiology, use get_sport_settings instead for per-sport FTP and zones. It doesn't spell out prerequisites or edge cases, but for a zero-parameter read the selection guidance is effectively complete.

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