TrainingPeaks MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

tp_update_note

Update a TrainingPeaks calendar note by changing its title, description, date, or visibility. Provide the note ID and at least one field to modify.

Instructions

Update a calendar note. Provide at least one of: title, description, date, is_hidden.

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": {
      "note_id": "<note_id>"
    },
    "name": "tp_update_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	No	YYYY-MM-DD
`title`	No
`athlete`	No	Target athlete name or ID (coach accounts only). Omit to use your own profile.
`note_id`	Yes	Note ID
`is_hidden`	No
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, behavior when note_id is invalid, or the effect of the athlete parameter. It only lists the updatable fields, leaving the behavioral profile largely opaque for a mutation 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?

Two succinct sentences with no redundancy; the essential constraint is front-loaded.

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 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations; the description omits the athlete parameter (important for coach accounts) and does not explain what happens when no update fields are provided despite the instruction. It is insufficient for a complete understanding of the tool's behavior.

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?

The description adds meaning by identifying which fields are updatable and requiring at least one, but it does not explain the semantics of title, description, or is_hidden beyond their names, and it omits the athlete parameter entirely. Schema descriptions cover date, athlete, and note_id, so the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('calendar note'), and lists the updatable fields, distinguishing it from create/delete/get note siblings. It lacks an explicit comparison to tp_set_workout_note, but 'calendar note' differentiates.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tp_set_workout_note or tp_get_note. The only guideline is the required input constraint, which is more of a parameter requirement than a usage context. No when-not-to-use or alternative mentions.

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

Deploy Server