strava_get_clubGet detailed information about a club including description, member count, and sport type.
Get detailed information about a club including description, member count, and sport type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| club_id | Yes | The club 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 / club_id / exclusiveMinimumAdded value: +0Input schema / properties / club_id / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the payload includes description, member count and sport type, but says nothing about error behavior for invalid/private club IDs or freshness of the data.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the field preview earns its place by telling the agent what value the call returns. No filler.
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 trivial single-parameter read tool with a full schema and complete read-only annotations, the description covers purpose and return content adequately. No output schema exists, so some detail on the response shape is a minor residual gap.
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?
There is a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents club_id as a positive integer. The description adds no syntax or provenance guidance (e.g. where to obtain club_id), so baseline 3 applies.
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+resource ('Get detailed information about a club') and previews the returned fields (description, member count, sport type). It implicitly contrasts with strava_list_athlete_clubs via 'detailed information' about a single club, but never names the sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only inferable from the purpose: fetch details for one club. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of how it differs from strava_list_athlete_clubs, and no prerequisite for obtaining a club_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.