Intervals.icu MCP Server

get_custom_items

Retrieves an athlete's custom items—charts, custom fields, and zones—from Intervals.icu so you can inspect or reuse their configured data.

Instructions

Get custom items (charts, custom fields, zones, etc.) for an athlete from Intervals.icu

Args:

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_custom_items"
  }
}

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

B3/5.0

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, and it discloses only the implicit read semantics of "Get". It says nothing about whether results are scoped to a default athlete, how pagination/volume is handled, or what access is required — notable gaps for a cross-system data fetch.

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 single purpose sentence is well-formed and front-loaded, but the description ends with an empty "Args:" section that is pure leftover scaffolding and gives the impression the definition was truncated.

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 not be described, and a zero-parameter read tool needs little more than a purpose statement. Still, the missing list-vs-by-id routing guidance and the truncated Args block keep it at minimum-viable rather than complete.

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 per the baseline rule this scores a 4; the schema is complete and there is nothing for the description to clarify. The dangling "Args:" header adds no information but does not misrepresent the (empty) parameter set.

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 custom items") and enumerates the concrete item types (charts, custom fields, zones), plus the source system Intervals.icu. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_custom_item_by_id or get_gear_list, leaving the agent to infer that this is the unfiltered list variant.

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 list tool versus get_custom_item_by_id, nor any note that it returns all items for an athlete without filtering. The agent must infer the routing decision purely from the sibling names.

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