Strava MCP Server

List Segment Efforts

strava_list_segment_efforts

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the authenticated athlete's efforts on a segment, newest first, optionally filtered by date range. Limited to per_page results (no next-page cursor).

Instructions

List the authenticated athlete's efforts on a segment, newest first, optionally filtered by date range. Limited to per_page results (no next-page cursor). Mirror history can be incomplete; fallback fetches all upstream pages before slicing, so per_page does not cap API calls. Check strava_sync_status or strava://mirror/budget; prefer stored SQL when budget is tight.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`per_page`	No	Results per page (1-200, default 30)
`segment_id`	Yes	The segment ID
`end_date_local`	No	Filter efforts before this ISO 8601 date
`start_date_local`	No	Filter efforts after this ISO 8601 date

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed8 schema fields changedv4.4.1Oct 28, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

addedInput schema / properties / end_date_local / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "format": "date",
+    "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))$",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d:[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?(?:Z|([+-](?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d))|(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?)$",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]

removedInput schema / properties / end_date_local / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```
addedInput schema / properties / segment_id / exclusiveMinimum
```
Added value: +0
```
addedInput schema / properties / segment_id / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```

addedInput schema / properties / start_date_local / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "format": "date",
+    "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))$",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d:[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?(?:Z|([+-](?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d))|(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?)$",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]

removedInput schema / properties / start_date_local / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

First observedv1.0.0Mar 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Although annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description discloses behavior they cannot capture: no next-page cursor, possible gaps in the mirror history, and that per_page does not bound API traffic. That is exactly the cost and completeness information an agent needs before calling an openWorld tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is four sentences and front-loads the core purpose before moving on to pagination and budget caveats. Slightly dense, but each sentence adds operational information rather than restating the title or schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, pagination limits, mirror reliability, and budget fallback. The remaining gap is minor: it does not characterize the effort records returned or what fields they carry.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: per_page caps returned rows only and does not cap upstream API calls, because the fallback fetches all pages before slicing. It also states ordering as newest first, which the schema does not express.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource plus scope: 'List the authenticated athlete's efforts on a segment, newest first.' That distinguishes it from the singular strava_get_segment_effort and from strava_list_starred_segments without the agent needing to open any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives real routing guidance: check strava_sync_status or strava://mirror/budget and prefer stored SQL queries when the API budget is tight. It does not state exclusions against the singular effort getter, but the context for when to reach for this tool versus the budget-check siblings is explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

List Segment Efforts

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools