Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Crawlora MCP

by net.crawlora
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

strava_route_detail

Read-only

Returns a single Strava route's detail: type, difficulty, distance, elevation gain, estimated time, and summary. path is the relative route path returned by /strava/routes results (e.g. hiking/usa/colorado/boulder/mallory-cave_5171952737974445730). Public data, sourced from Strava's own server-rendered route pages. Use strava_routes to retrieve strava route-index listing for a sport, country, and region.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "strava_route_detail"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesRelative route path, from a /strava/routes result's path field

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesThe tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / path / description
      Added value: +"Relative route path, from a /strava/routes result's path field"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety/access profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the data is public and sourced from Strava's own server-rendered route pages, which tells the agent about reliability and provenance.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the return contents, then the parameter, then provenance and the sibling cross-reference. Every sentence carries information; only minor overlap between the field listing and the existence of an output schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a single required parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, how to obtain the input, and where the data comes from. Nothing material is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (the schema already states path comes from a /strava/routes result's path field), so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by giving a concrete example path format, clarifying shape and hierarchy beyond the schema's terse note.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('a single Strava route's detail') and enumerates the exact fields returned (type, difficulty, distance, elevation gain, estimated time, summary). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling strava_routes listing tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It routes the agent clearly: the `path` must come from strava_routes results, and the closing sentence names strava_routes as the tool for the route-index listing. This is clear context and a named alternative, though it doesn't explicitly state when this detail tool should be preferred over fetching the index.

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

All Crawlora MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources