enduraw-MCP

get_enduraw_archive_status

Checks whether an athlete's uploaded Enduraw activity archive or FIT history has finished processing, so you can confirm when the data is ready to query.

Instructions

Checks the processing status of the athlete's uploaded activity archive / FIT history on Enduraw.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_enduraw_archive_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses little: no statement that it is a read-only, non-mutating check, no indication of the possible status values or whether processing states are transient, no polling guidance, and no mention of what happens before any archive has been uploaded.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The 'activity archive / FIT history' slash phrasing is slightly loose, but the sentence is tight and every clause contributes meaning.

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

Completeness2/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what a status check returns (state names, progress, error cases), and it says nothing about them. For a status/polling tool, the return semantics are the core information and they are missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. Nothing in the description contradicts or misrepresents the empty input schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('checks') and a specific resource ('processing status of the athlete's uploaded activity archive / FIT history'), which clearly separates it from data-retrieval siblings like get_enduraw_activities or get_enduraw_matrix. It stops short of explicitly naming when a sibling would be preferable, but the resource is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to poll after an archive/FIT upload, but the description never says so directly, never mentions when not to use it, and never points to an alternative (e.g. listing activities once processing completes).

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