Fetch the authenticated athlete's Strava profile, including name, location, and stats, to enable personalized activity analysis and responses.
認証されたアスリートのプロフィール情報を取得します。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_athlete"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'retrieves' profile information, which implies a read operation, but lacks any detail about authentication requirements (beyond the word 'authenticated'), error cases, rate limits, or response format. This is minimal coverage for a tool that has no other structured metadata.
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 with no filler words. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently and is appropriately sized for a simple resource-retrieval 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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is the only source of context. It covers the core purpose but is vague about what 'profile information' includes, how authentication is handled, and what to expect in the response. This leaves a moderate gap for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool or interpret its result.
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, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters. The description adds no parameter-related information, but none is needed.
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 verb '取得します' (retrieve) and the resource '認証されたアスリートのプロフィール情報' (profile information of the authenticated athlete). It unambiguously distinguishes the tool from its siblings (get_activities, get_activity, get_athlete_stats) by focusing specifically on the athlete's profile.
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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. However, the usage is implied by the tool name and description: when you need the authenticated athlete's profile, this is the tool. No alternatives are mentioned, so it stops at implied usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.