Strava MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool exports and saves to a local directory, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, file naming, or what happens if the directory is inaccessible. The description adds some value but is incomplete for a write operation.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes essential details like format and destination. There is no wasted wording, and it directly communicates the tool's function without redundancy.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a tool with one parameter. It covers the action, format, and destination, but lacks details on error handling, output confirmation, or integration with other tools like 'check-strava-connection'. For a write operation, more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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 the single parameter 'routeId' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 states the verb 'exports' and resource 'a specific Strava route in GPX format', and distinguishes it from sibling 'export-route-tcx' by specifying the GPX format. It adds destination context with 'saves it to a pre-configured local directory', making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 description implies usage when a GPX export is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'export-route-tcx' (which likely exports TCX format) or 'get-route' (which might retrieve route data without export). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context partially implied.

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