strava_get_segmentGet detailed information about a segment including distance, elevation, grade, effort count, and athlete count.
Get detailed information about a segment including distance, elevation, grade, effort count, and athlete count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| segment_id | Yes | The segment 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 / segment_id / exclusiveMinimumAdded value: +0Input schema / properties / segment_id / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the response includes derived metrics (grade, effort count, athlete count), which is useful return-content context given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about error cases or missing segments.
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 front-loaded sentence with the key returned fields enumerated; no filler or redundancy.
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-only tool with full annotation coverage, the description is largely sufficient, and the field list compensates for the missing output schema. A note on behavior for nonexistent or private segments is the only notable 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the sole parameter segment_id is documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about the identifier's format or source, so the 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 and resource ('Get detailed information about a segment') and enumerates the content returned (distance, elevation, grade, effort count, athlete count). It does not explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings such as strava_list_segment_efforts or strava_get_segment_effort, 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?
No statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like strava_list_starred_segments, strava_get_segment_effort, or strava_export_segment_gpx. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.