Intervals.icu MCP Server

get_gear_list

Retrieves the signed-in athlete's gear catalog (bikes, shoes, etc.) from Intervals.icu, optionally bypassing the cache to re-fetch current items.

Instructions

Get the gear catalog (bikes, shoes, etc.) for the signed-in athlete from Intervals.icu.

Returns one line per gear item with id, type, name, and basic stats.
The result is cached for the MCP process lifetime; pass refresh=True to
re-fetch.

Args:
    refresh: If True, bypass the cache and re-fetch from the API (default False)

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_gear_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`refresh`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a non-obvious behavioral trait: results are cached for the MCP process lifetime, with refresh=True to bypass. It also sketches the return shape ('one line per gear item with id, type, name, and basic stats'). It stops short of stating read-only semantics or any auth/rate-limit constraints beyond 'signed-in 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, followed by return format and caching, with an Args block for the single parameter. Every sentence carries information; the only minor redundancy is restating the default value already in the schema.

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 needn't be detailed, yet the description still gives a one-line shape summary. Caching behavior — the main gotcha for a caller — is covered. Only auth/permission expectations are left implicit.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does, fully defining the sole parameter: 'If True, bypass the cache and re-fetch from the API (default False).' This adds the caching semantics the bare boolean in the schema lacks. A 5 is withheld only because the param is trivially simple and the default is repeated from the schema.

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 the gear catalog (bikes, shoes, etc.) for the signed-in athlete from Intervals.icu.' The parenthetical examples and the data source make the scope unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, though none of the listed siblings deal with gear, so confusion risk is low.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by 'for the signed-in athlete' and by the refresh guidance, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus an alternative, nor any prerequisite/permission note. There is no true gear-listing sibling to route against, so the absence is not costly.

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