Intervals.icu MCP Server

get_event_by_id

Retrieves detailed information for a specific Intervals.icu event using its event ID, helping you inspect event details.

Instructions

Get detailed information for a specific event 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": "get_event_by_id"
  }
}

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

C2.8/5.0

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 behavioral burden. It only implies a read via 'Get detailed information'; it says nothing about permissions, what happens with an invalid or foreign event ID, or rate limits. Return fields are at least covered by the output schema, which keeps this from being a 1.

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?

The one-line summary is front-loaded and economical. The trailing 'Args:' block duplicates the input schema and adds no information, which is the only real waste.

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?

For a trivial single-parameter read with an output schema, the description is adequate: it says what is returned and from where. It omits sibling routing and invalid-ID behavior, which are the only meaningful remaining gaps at this complexity.

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, but it only restates the schema title ('The Intervals.icu event ID'). It adds no format, provenance, or example for the ID, leaving the agent with nothing beyond the bare parameter name.

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 — retrieves detailed information for one event by ID — which is clearly distinct from the sibling list tool get_events. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, but the single-vs-list distinction is inferable from 'a specific event'.

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 prefer this over get_events, and no note that the caller must already have an event_id (e.g., obtained from get_events). The agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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