Check your Strava API rate-limit status by viewing the last observed rate-limit headers from this MCP process, helping you monitor usage and avoid hitting limits.
Show Strava API rate-limit headers last observed by this MCP process.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals a key behavioral trait: the data comes from the process's last observation, implying no live API call is made. This adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, clarifying the source of the information. However, it does not specify what happens if no observations exist yet.
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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured, placing the action verb first and followed by the specific resource and source. Ideal for a simple tool.
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 there are no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It specifies the data source ('last observed by this MCP process') which is valuable context. It could optionally mention the output format, but that is not critical for understanding the tool's function.
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?
There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, this yields a baseline score of 3. The description adds nothing about parameters because none exist, which is appropriate.
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's function: showing Strava API rate-limit headers as last observed by this MCP process. It uses a specific verb 'Show' and names the resource, distinguishing it from other tools like strava_cache_status. No ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used to check rate limits before making API calls, nor does it contrast with similar diagnostic tools like strava_cache_status. Users must infer its purpose from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.