Intervals.icu MCP Server

update_custom_item

Modify an existing athlete custom item on Intervals.icu by changing its name, type, description, configuration content, or visibility.

Instructions

Update an existing custom item for an athlete on Intervals.icu

Args:
    item_id: The custom item ID to update
    name: New name for the custom item (optional)
    item_type: New type for the custom item (optional)
    description: New description for the custom item (optional)
    content: New configuration content for the custom item as a dict (optional). Important enum values:
        - "type" field for INPUT_FIELD/ACTIVITY_FIELD: must be "numeric", "text", or "select" (NOT "number")
        - "aggregate" field: must be "MIN", "SUM", "MAX", or "AVERAGE" (NOT "AVG")
    visibility: New visibility setting: PRIVATE, FOLLOWERS, or PUBLIC (optional)

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": "update_custom_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`content`	No
`item_id`	Yes
`item_type`	No
`visibility`	No
`description`	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

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals partial-update semantics implicitly (only item_id is required, others are 'optional') and flags two validation traps that would otherwise cause failures, but says nothing about permissions, whether changes are reversible, or what happens on invalid item_id.

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 summary followed by an Args list; every line adds information. The docstring formatting is slightly verbose but no sentence is wasted.

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 not be explained, and all six inputs are covered with the risky enum cases called out. Missing only operational context (auth/permissions, error behavior) for a mutation tool with no annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% – only bare titles – so the description must supply meaning, and it does for every parameter. The enum guidance for 'type' ('numeric'/'text'/'select', NOT 'number') and 'aggregate' ('MIN'/'SUM'/'MAX'/'AVERAGE', NOT 'AVG') plus the allowed visibility values are exactly the kind of detail the schema lacks.

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 ('Update an existing custom item for an athlete on Intervals.icu'), which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with create_custom_item or get_custom_item_by_id, but the 'existing' qualifier makes the distinction inferable.

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 'update an existing' plus the all-optional parameter set, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention that non-supplied fields are left untouched, and no pointer to create_custom_item for new items.

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