getLoggedInAthleteStarredSegmentsList Starred Segments - List of the authenticated athlete's starred segments. Private segments are filtered out unless requested by a token with read_all scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| per_page | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: private segments are filtered out unless the token has read_all scope. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies an edge case.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by an important caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no extraneous details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the main purpose and a key filtering behavior. However, since there is no output schema and parameters are undocumented, the description is not fully complete; it omits pagination behavior and response structure. Still, for a list operation, it provides adequate context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema defines page and per_page as integers without any description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not explain these parameters or their behavior (e.g., default values, max per_page, 0-indexing). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: 'authenticated athlete's starred segments.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with clubs, activities, or segment exploration. The additional note about private segments being filtered out adds specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like exploreSegments. It implies usage by describing the authenticated athlete's starred segments, but there is no explicit comparison or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and operation: segments, clubs, gear, athlete, routes, and stats. Even potentially similar tools like getEffortsBySegmentId and getSegmentEffortById are clearly differentiated by their descriptions (listing efforts vs. fetching a single effort).
All tool names follow a consistent camelCase pattern with a verb (get, explore) followed by a specific noun phrase. Names like getClubById, getLoggedInAthlete, and getStats are uniform and predictable, making it easy to infer their purpose.
With 13 tools, the server is well-scoped for a focused read-only API over Strava data. The count is within the ideal range and each tool covers a meaningful aspect of the domain without redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers several Strava domains (clubs, segments, gear, routes, athlete stats) but is missing any activity-related operations (e.g., list activities, get activity by ID) and all write operations. This creates notable gaps for a comprehensive Strava integration, though the read-only scope may be intentional.