Retrieve the Strava clubs the connected athlete belongs to, including sport type, location, and member count, with page and per-page controls.
Clubs the connected athlete belongs to, with sport type, location and member count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, starting at 1. | |
| per_page | No | Items per page, at most 200. |
| 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=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned fields (sport type, location, member count), but does not explain pagination behavior or any authorization requirements beyond what the schema and annotations provide.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core resource and its returned fields.
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, parameters are fully documented, and annotations cover safety characteristics. For a simple read-only list operation, the description is nearly complete; only minor operational context like pagination behavior is absent but already covered by the schema.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both pagination parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level semantics, which is acceptable given the schema 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?
The description clearly identifies the resource (clubs the connected athlete belongs to) and the data returned (sport type, location, member count). It does not explicitly use a verb like 'list', but the meaning is unambiguous and it is distinguishable from the athlete/activity/segment siblings.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the resource phrase 'clubs the connected athlete belongs to'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.