strava_get_segment_effortGet a specific segment effort by ID, including elapsed time, heart rate, watts, and achievements.
Get a specific segment effort by ID, including elapsed time, heart rate, watts, and achievements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| effort_id | Yes | The segment effort ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.4.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / effort_id / patternAdded value: +"^[1-9]\\d{0,18}$"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 value by naming the payload fields (elapsed time, heart rate, watts, achievements), which partially substitutes for a missing output schema, but says nothing about auth requirements or behavior for a nonexistent/foreign effort ID.
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 action and resource, with the returned fields trailing as useful detail. No padding 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 one-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema, strong annotations, and a description that previews the returned fields in lieu of an output schema, little is missing. Only cross-tool routing and error/permission behavior remain unexplained.
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 single effort_id parameter is fully documented with a pattern, so the schema carries the load. The description's 'by ID' adds no format or source information beyond that baseline.
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 a specific segment effort by ID') and lists the notable returned fields. It is clearly a single-resource fetch, implicitly distinct from strava_list_segment_efforts, but never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.
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 guidance on when to use this versus strava_list_segment_efforts (to enumerate efforts for a segment/activity) or strava_get_segment_effort_streams (for raw samples). The agent must infer routing from the names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.