Strava MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'fetches detailed information' without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what format/details are returned. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, the response format, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool in a complex domain (Strava activities) with many sibling tools, more context is needed to understand its specific role and output.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'activityId' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the ID is used to fetch details. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate even though the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 'fetches' and resource 'detailed information about a specific activity', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-all-activities' by specifying 'specific activity using its ID', but doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'get-activity-laps' or 'get-activity-streams' that also fetch activity-related data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to siblings like 'get-all-activities' for listing activities or 'get-activity-streams' for different types of activity data. There's no context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.

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