Strava MCP Capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds 'Does not call Strava or expose secrets,' clarifying that it performs no external network calls and protects privacy. This goes beyond annotations by specifying the tool's boundary with the Strava API and secret handling.

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 two short sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, the second adds a critical constraint. There is no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 capability/explanation tool, the description covers all advertised topics (data, privacy, GPS, workflow, links) and sets expectations with a non-call guarantee. Given the output schema exists and annotations cover side effects, the description is complete enough.

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 input schema documents a single optional parameter (response_format) with enum and default, and the description provides no explanation of this parameter. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, though the parameter is self-explanatory.

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 uses the specific verb 'Explain' and lists concrete topics: supported Strava data, privacy boundaries, GPS handling, recommended agent workflow, and project links. It also clearly states what it does not do ('Does not call Strava or expose secrets'), which distinguishes it from the many data-access sibling tools.

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 signals when to use it ('recommended agent workflow') and provides an exclusion ('Does not call Strava or expose secrets'), implying it is for orientation rather than live data access. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use this when...' so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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