strava_export_route_gpxExport a route as a GPX file. Returns raw GPX XML content.
Export a route as a GPX file. Returns raw GPX XML content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| route_id | Yes | The route ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.4.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / route_id / patternAdded value: +"^[1-9]\\d{0,18}$"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: the return value is raw GPX XML rather than structured JSON, which matters for how an agent handles the response. It omits file-size or rate-limit characteristics, keeping it below a 5.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, and the return-format fact is front-loaded where the agent will see it. Nothing is redundant with the name.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and an explicit return-format note, the description is nearly sufficient. Minor gaps remain around whether the route must belong to the authenticated athlete and any export size constraints.
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% for the single route_id parameter, and the description adds nothing beyond it. Per the baseline rule for fully documented schemas, a 3 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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Export a route") plus the output format (GPX file), which implicitly separates it from the TCX exporter sibling. It stops short of naming strava_export_route_tcx or strava_get_route explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The agent must infer from the name alone whether to call this versus strava_get_route, strava_get_route_streams, or strava_export_route_tcx.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.