Retrieve detailed information for a specific Strava gear item by providing its gear ID. Get equipment specs and identification data directly from your Strava account.
Fetch detail for one Strava gear id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Strava gear id, such as b123456. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already conveys that this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds no further behavioral context such as rate limits or potential side effects, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 fetch operation, the description is sufficiently complete, indicating the resource and scope. It does not mention return format, but given the triviality of the operation and the absence of an output schema, this is not a significant gap.
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 already fully describes the 'id' parameter with type and an example format. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, so the score remains at the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 (fetch) and the resource (gear detail) with a specific scope (one gear id). It is unambiguous and immediately distinguishes this tool from others like strava_gear_usage, which focuses on usage statistics.
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 provide any guidance on when to use this tool over siblings such as strava_gear_usage or strava_activity_detail. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.