Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TrainingPeaks MCP

TrainingPeaks MCP

by lsantome
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

tp_create_event

Create a race or event with priority (A/B/C) and CTL target to structure training around key competitions.

Instructions

Create a race/event with priority (A/B/C) and CTL target.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "date": "<date>"
    },
    "name": "tp_create_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateYesYYYY-MM-DD
nameYes
athleteNoTarget athlete name or ID (coach accounts only). Omit to use your own profile.
priorityNo
ctl_targetNo
event_typeNo
descriptionNo
distance_kmNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
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 responsibility for disclosing side effects. It only mentions the basic creation action, without addressing auth requirements (e.g., coach-only athlete targeting), idempotency, or behavior for duplicate events. The description also lists priority and CTL target without noting they are optional in the schema.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and key attributes.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sparse. It establishes the purpose but does not mention how to choose event_type or what the response will be. Required fields (name, date) are self-explanatory, so this is minimally adequate.

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 only 25%, so the description should compensate. It adds meaning to priority and ctl_target by naming them, but leaves event_type, description, and distance_km without further clarification. Partially helpful but incomplete for a tool with 8 parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('race/event'), while highlighting key attributes (priority A/B/C and CTL target). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tp_create_workout or tp_create_equipment.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tp_create_workout or tp_create_availability. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred contexts.

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