Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TrainingPeaks MCP

TrainingPeaks MCP

by lsantome
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

tp_get_availability

Retrieve availability entries for a specified date range to determine when an athlete is available for training.

Instructions

Get availability entries for a date range.

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": {
      "start_date": "<start_date>",
      "end_date": "<end_date>"
    },
    "name": "tp_get_availability"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
athleteNoTarget athlete name or ID (coach accounts only). Omit to use your own profile.
end_dateYesYYYY-MM-DD
start_dateYesYYYY-MM-DD

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, the response format, auth requirements, or behavior for the optional 'athlete' parameter. This is a minimal description that adds no behavioral context beyond the verb 'Get'.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core function efficiently.

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 the description should have explained return values or additional context. It does not address what the availability entries contain, how the date range is interpreted (inclusive/exclusive), or the coach/athlete distinction implied by the 'athlete' parameter. This leaves the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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?

All 3 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain them. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 (Get), the resource (availability entries), and the scope (date range). It distinguishes from sibling tools by the verb 'Get' versus 'Create'/'Delete' in tp_create_availability and tp_delete_availability.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to other tools like tp_get_events or availability-related mutations.

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