Retrieve routes created by the connected Strava athlete, including distance, elevation gain, type, and estimated time, with page controls to browse results.
Routes the connected athlete created, with distance, elevation gain, type and estimated time.
| 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 agent knows this is a safe external read. The description adds the returned fields (distance, elevation gain, type, estimated time), but says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or empty results — pagination is only discoverable from the schema defaults.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the scope ('routes the connected athlete created') before enumerating returned attributes. No filler, nothing that could be trimmed without losing information.
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 the description need not explain return values, and parameters are fully covered by the schema. What remains missing is sibling differentiation and any note about pagination limits or ordering — minor but not zero gaps for a list tool in a crowded namespace.
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% and both parameters (page, per_page) are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about pagination semantics or the 200-item cap, but it doesn't need to since the schema carries that information.
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 names the resource (routes) and scopes it to the connected athlete, plus lists the returned attributes, so the agent knows what it retrieves. It never explicitly states the verb 'list' and does not differentiate this from siblings like list_starred_segments or list_activities, which also enumerate route-adjacent resources.
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?
The phrase 'the connected athlete created' implies a scope — the athlete's own routes, as opposed to starred segments or club data — which gives implicit guidance on when to pick this tool. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no reference to an alternative tool for related route data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.