getSegmentEffortByIdGet Segment Effort - Returns a segment effort from an activity that is owned by the authenticated athlete. Requires subscription.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: ownership restriction (only efforts from the authenticated athlete's activities) and the subscription requirement, which are not in the annotations.
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 very concise, with no filler. It front-loads the tool name and provides a direct definition plus one context note (subscription). Every word earns its place.
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 read-only operation with one parameter, the description is adequate but incomplete. It omits parameter semantics and return value details, but annotations cover safety and the sibling list helps context. The subscription requirement is an important addition.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain the 'id' parameter. It does not explicitly state that 'id' refers to the segment effort ID, nor does it clarify the format or required context. This is a significant gap for a single-parameter tool.
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 action (returns a segment effort) and resource (segment effort owned by the authenticated athlete). It distinguishes from sibling getEffortsBySegmentId by implying a single effort is returned, though it doesn't explicitly mention 'by ID'.
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?
It provides a prerequisite ('Requires subscription') but gives no guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, though the ownership condition implies it's for the athlete's own efforts.
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.