strava_get_gearGet equipment details by ID (name, brand, model, total distance). Gear IDs look like "b12345" for bikes or "g12345" for shoes.
Get equipment details by ID (name, brand, model, total distance). Gear IDs look like "b12345" for bikes or "g12345" for shoes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gear_id | Yes | The gear ID (e.g. "b12345" for a bike, "g12345" for shoes) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.4.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / gear_id / patternAdded value: +"^[bg][1-9]\\d{0,18}$"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered; the description's added value is the field list and ID format. It says nothing about behavior when an ID is unknown, whether the call fails or returns empty, or any rate-limit/auth context.
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, with the core operation front-loaded and the identifier hint second. Nothing redundant or padded.
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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is essentially sufficient; listing the return fields compensates for the absent output schema. Only the not-found behavior and athlete-scoping are unaddressed.
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 parameter already carries the exact '{"b12345"} for bike' example, so the description's ID-format sentence is close to duplication. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the explanatory work.
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 ('get equipment details by ID') and lists what the record contains (name, brand, model, total distance), so the agent knows exactly what it receives. No sibling tool covers gear, so explicit differentiation isn't required, but the description never says the gear belongs to the authenticated athlete, leaving scope slightly implicit.
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 implied: the ID-format hint tells the agent which identifier to supply, but there is no statement of when to call this versus fetching gear through activity detail, nor any prerequisite (e.g., that a gear ID must first be obtained from an activity response).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.