Skip to main content
Glama
hhopke

intervals-icu-mcp

by hhopke
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

icu_apply_sport_settings

Destructive

Apply current sport zone settings to every past activity, correcting historical analysis after wrong settings. Updates HR thresholds for sports with HR zones while preserving FTP and other stored thresholds.

Instructions

Overwrite the zones on EVERY past activity of this sport with the current settings' zones.

No date range: all matching activities are rewritten. FTP and other thresholds stored on past activities are kept; for sports with HR zones, LTHR and max HR are updated. Not needed after update_sport_settings — new values already apply to activities from now on, and past ones keep the settings they were analysed with. Use only to correct wrong settings across the whole history. For selected activities or a date range, tell the user to use Update zones in the Intervals.icu activity list view (not in the API).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sport_idYesID of the sport settings to apply
athlete_idNoAthlete ID (for coaches managing multiple athletes)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv5.0.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / athlete_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Athlete ID (for coaches managing multiple athletes)"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv4.2.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / oldest_date
      Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "description": "Oldest date to apply settings to (YYYY-MM-DD format)"
-}
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the full behavioral impact: every past activity is rewritten, no date range can limit it, FTP and other thresholds are preserved, and LTHR/max HR are updated for HR-zone sports. This is exactly the kind of destructive scope an agent needs to understand before invoking the tool.

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?

The description is detailed but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the destructive scope, then clarifies what is preserved, when the tool is unnecessary, and what alternative to recommend. The length is justified by the high-stakes nature of the operation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description fully covers what the tool does, its irreversible broad scope, what data is preserved, when not to use it, and what alternative to suggest. With an output schema present, return-value details are unnecessary; nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents sport_id and athlete_id. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, and at this coverage level the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a precise action: overwrite zones on every past activity for a sport, with an explicit scope of all matching activities. It clearly differentiates itself from the related update_sport_settings tool by explaining that normal settings updates do not require this tool.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly tells when this tool is needed (correcting wrong historical settings), when it is not needed (after update_sport_settings), and what alternative to recommend for selected activities or date ranges (Update zones in Intervals.icu, not the API). This leaves no ambiguity about selection.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools