getRoutesByAthleteIdList Athlete Routes - Returns a list of the routes created by the authenticated athlete. Private routes 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it scopes to the authenticated athlete and discloses private route filtering based on token scope. No contradictions with annotations; the added detail goes beyond the structured fields.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a key behavioral note. Every word adds value; no filler or repetition. It is concise and well-structured.
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?
For a simple list tool with strong annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and an important edge case (private routes). However, it omits any mention of pagination parameters or response structure, and there is no output schema to compensate. Still, it is adequate for basic invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'page' or 'per_page' parameters at all. The agent is left with no guidance on pagination behavior, defaults, or valid ranges. This is a significant gap since the description must compensate for low schema coverage but fails to do so.
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 clearly states the tool returns a list of routes created by the authenticated athlete, using the specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'routes'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the authenticated athlete scope and the private route filtering condition, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 provides clear context on when the tool applies (listing authenticated athlete's routes) and clarifies that private routes are excluded unless read_all scope is used. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient for selection among siblings.
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.