Intervals.icu MCP Server

get_custom_item_by_id

Retrieve detailed information for a specific custom item by its ID from Intervals.icu.

Instructions

Get detailed information for a specific custom item from Intervals.icu

Args:
    item_id: The custom item 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": {
      "item_id": "<item_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_custom_item_by_id"
  }
}

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

C2.8/5.0

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 burden. 'Get' implies a read, but nothing is said about authentication requirements, what happens when the ID does not exist, or whether the response is cached/scoped to the athlete.

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?

Two short lines with the purpose front-loaded, followed by an Args block. Nothing is padded, though the Args block adds little value given the near-total overlap with the schema field name.

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 needn't be described, and the tool takes only one parameter. Still, the absence of any behavioral or routing context leaves it only minimally sufficient for a lookup tool with no annotations.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only restates that item_id is 'The custom item ID' with no type, source (e.g., obtained from get_custom_items), or validation details, leaving the single parameter barely clarified.

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 ('Get detailed information for a specific custom item from Intervals.icu'), and the phrase 'a specific ... item' implicitly contrasts with the list tool get_custom_items. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the list-vs-single split.

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 guidance on when to use this rather than get_custom_items, create_custom_item, update_custom_item, or delete_custom_item. There is no mention of prerequisites, error behavior for unknown IDs, or alternatives.

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