Guides you through Strava screens and sign-in so you can list activities and update activity gear.
How to work in Strava (list activities and update gear): its screens and the sign-in link. Call this first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | No | What you want done in Strava, in your words. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool returns instructional content (screens, sign-in link) and implies it is a prerequisite step rather than an action, but it never explicitly says it performs no navigation or mutation and does not describe how the guide is structured or how large it is.
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?
One compact sentence with no filler. The most important routing instruction, 'Call this first,' sits at the end rather than the front, which is the only structural weakness.
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 an entry-point guide tool with no output schema and a trivial input, the description covers enough to select it, but it leaves the return shape and the coverage of the guide vague. An agent knows to call it first but not what it will actually get back or how to use it afterwards.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'task' parameter is self-describing, so the schema does the work. The parenthetical 'list activities and update gear' hints at the kinds of tasks to pass in but adds no format or constraint detail beyond that.
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 the resource (Strava) and the kind of output (a guide covering screens and the sign-in link), plus the scope of tasks it covers (listing activities, updating gear). The verb is soft ('How to work in'), but an agent can tell this is the orientation/onboarding tool rather than one of the action siblings like strava_read or strava_click.
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?
'Call this first' gives an explicit ordering rule relative to the other strava_* tools, which is the key usage decision here. It does not state when to skip it or what to do if the guide is already known, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.