strava_get_routeGet detailed route information including distance, elevation gain, and estimated moving time.
Get detailed route information including distance, elevation gain, and estimated moving time.
| 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 behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds value by naming the returned fields, which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about error behavior for an unknown route ID or about whose routes are visible.
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?
A single tight sentence with the resource and returned fields front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably under-sized for its job, but every clause earns its place.
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 rich annotations, the description is close to sufficient, but it leaves real gaps: route ownership/visibility, failure mode for a bad ID, and how it differs from the route stream and export siblings.
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?
One parameter with 100% schema description coverage and a regex pattern; the schema fully documents it. The description adds no meaning about the ID beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the 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?
Specific verb+resource ('Get detailed route information') plus the fields returned (distance, elevation gain, moving time). It is distinguishable from strava_list_athlete_routes and strava_get_route_streams, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the boundary.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says the route must belong to the authenticated athlete, nothing routes the agent to strava_get_route_streams for per-point data or to the GPX/TCX export tools. Usage is only inferable from the name and the single required ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.