Retrieve time spent in each heart-rate and power zone for a single Strava activity to analyze training intensity distribution. Requires an activity ID; some data may need a Strava subscription.
Time spent in each heart-rate and power zone during one activity. Strava may require a subscription for this data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| activity_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context — that Strava may gate this data behind a subscription — but says nothing about what is returned or how a gated/failed request surfaces to the caller.
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, both front-loaded and free of padding: the first defines the payload, the second flags the access caveat. Nothing to trim.
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?
An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and annotations carry read-only semantics. Still missing is how to obtain a valid activity_id and what happens on subscription-gated access, which matters for a per-entity lookup on a third-party API.
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 0% and the description adds no explanation of activity_id, so the agent relies entirely on the self-explanatory parameter name being a Strava activity identifier. With a single obvious integer key, that is adequate but no more.
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 resource and scope: per-activity time-in-zone for heart rate and power. The phrase 'during one activity' implicitly separates it from the sibling get_athlete_zones, which covers athlete-level zone configuration, though that sibling is never named.
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 implied by the data type returned, but there is no explicit 'use when' framing and no mention of the alternative get_athlete_zones or get_activity_streams for raw zone data. The agent must infer the choice from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.