Intervals.icu MCP Server

get_events

Retrieve an athlete’s calendar events from Intervals.icu, optionally filtered by date range, to review scheduled activities and plan training.

Instructions

Get events for an athlete from Intervals.icu

Args:
    start_date: Start date in YYYY-MM-DD format (optional, defaults to today)
    end_date: End date in YYYY-MM-DD format (optional, defaults to 30 days from today)

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_events"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`end_date`	No
`start_date`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It does add real value by explaining what null means (today through 30 days out) and that results are scoped to an athlete, but it says nothing about ordering, maximum range, or whether the athlete is implicit from context.

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?

One-line purpose followed by a compact args block; no filler, and the essential scope statement comes first. Every line here earns its place.

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 values need no explanation, and both parameters are fully documented. The only gaps are the implicit athlete context (no athlete parameter) and any range limits, which are minor for a two-optional-param read tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% — both parameters are bare anyOf string/null fields — yet the description documents each one with a concrete format (YYYY-MM-DD) and a semantic default. That is a substantial addition over the schema, though it omits whether ranges are inclusive or a max span is enforced.

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 events for an athlete") plus the source system, which distinguishes it from single-event siblings like get_event_by_id. It implies a list-over-date-range read but never explicitly says it returns multiple events, so differentiation is only partial.

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 versus get_event_by_id, get_activities, or search_activities, all of which sit in the sibling list. The defaults hint at a reasonable-range query, but nothing states exclusions or prerequisites.

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