Retrieve your starred Strava segments with distance, grade, elevation, location, and personal record data to review saved climbs and routes for training or planning.
Segments the connected athlete has starred, with distance, grade, elevation, location and their PR.
| 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 field set, but since an output schema exists that information is largely redundant, and nothing is said about pagination limits or auth scoping beyond 'connected athlete'.
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 tight sentence with the resource and its return fields front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed 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?
For a simple paginated read with full annotation and output-schema coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs: what is listed and what comes back. Only minor gaps remain around paging behavior and differentiation from sibling segment tools.
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% with only two params (page, per_page), both documented in the schema including the 200-item cap. The description adds no parameter detail at all, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('segments the connected athlete has starred') plus the key fields returned (distance, grade, elevation, location, PR), which reads clearly as a list operation. It does not explicitly name how it differs from siblings like get_segment or list_segment_efforts, so it falls just short of top marks.
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 only: the description scopes results to 'starred' segments for 'the connected athlete', which hints at when the tool applies. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_segment for a single segment or list_segment_efforts for efforts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.