Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TrainingPeaks MCP

TrainingPeaks MCP

by lsantome
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

tp_delete_workout_file

Delete a workout file by file ID. Get the ID from tp_get_workout, then pass it with the workout ID to remove device or attachment files.

Instructions

Delete a workout file by file_id. Get file_id from tp_get_workout device_files/attachment_files.

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": {
      "workout_id": "<workout_id>",
      "file_id": "<file_id>"
    },
    "name": "tp_delete_workout_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
athleteNoTarget athlete name or ID (coach accounts only). Omit to use your own profile.
file_idYesFile ID from tp_get_workout
workout_idYesWorkout ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Delete' without disclosing whether deletion is permanent, requires permissions, or affects associated workout data. This is a minimal disclosure 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Single sentence, concise and direct. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so description should cover side effects and prerequisites. It only covers file_id source, leaving questions about reversibility, authorization, and success/failure responses. Incomplete for a delete operation.

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 has 100% coverage, so parameters are described. The description adds specific guidance for file_id, telling where to obtain it, which supplements the schema. No additional meaning for workout_id or athlete beyond schema.

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 'Delete a workout file by file_id' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling upload/download/delete-workout tools. It also tells the user where to find the file_id, reinforcing the purpose.

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?

It provides context by instructing to get file_id from tp_get_workout device_files/attachment_files, which helps when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, e.g., when to use tp_download_workout_file or tp_delete_workout instead.

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