get_athlete_profileRetrieve the authenticated Strava athlete's profile to access name, location, weight, preferred units, and gear with total distances.
Get the authenticated Strava athlete's profile: name, location, weight, preferred units and gear (shoes and bikes with their total distance).
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the fact that it returns the authenticated athlete's profile and enumerates fields, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose edge cases (e.g., missing gear, unit defaults) or any further behavior beyond the read-only nature, and with annotations covering the safety profile, the bar for extra credit is higher.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and then enumerates the returned fields. Every clause adds value; there is no fluff, redundancy, or unnecessary context.
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 zero-parameter, read-only profile tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent exactly what data will be returned and that it's the authenticated user. There is nothing an agent would need to invoke this tool correctly that is missing from the combination of description and annotations.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage). The description appropriately adds no parameter specifics because none exist. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description complies by not introducing extraneous parameter discussion.
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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('authenticated Strava athlete's profile'), and enumerates the returned contents (name, location, weight, units, gear with distances). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_recent_activities, get_activity_details, and get_athlete_stats, which cover different resources and scopes.
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 gives clear context: this tool is for the profile of the authenticated athlete, not activities or stats. It does not explicitly name 'when not to use' or alternatives, but the scoping to 'profile' and the detailed list of returned fields makes the intended usage unambiguous relative to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.