Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TrainingPeaks MCP

TrainingPeaks MCP

by lsantome
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

tp_delete_equipment

Delete equipment from TrainingPeaks by providing its ID. For coach accounts, optionally specify an athlete to remove their gear.

Instructions

Delete equipment.

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": {
      "equipment_id": "<equipment_id>"
    },
    "name": "tp_delete_equipment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
athleteNoTarget athlete name or ID (coach accounts only). Omit to use your own profile.
equipment_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that deletion is likely permanent, whether it removes associated records, or any dependency on permissions. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (two words) and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. While brevity is an asset, it sacrifices essential detail, making it barely acceptable as a minimum viable description.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema) and the availability of sibling CRUD tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks any mention of return behavior, side effects, or usage conditions, making it insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 50%, with the required equipment_id having no description. The description adds no parameter semantics, leaving the agent to infer that equipment_id is the identifier of the equipment to delete. The optional athlete parameter is briefly described in the schema but not clarified in the tool description.

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?

The description 'Delete equipment' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (equipment), distinguishing it from sibling tools like tp_create_equipment and tp_get_equipment. It is specific and unambiguous, though it lacks any additional context about scope or effects.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states the action without contextualizing it against similar tools.

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