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. It discloses pagination support and filtering capabilities, which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'complete activity history' entails (e.g., all-time vs. limited period). The behavioral context is partially covered but incomplete.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states core functionality, the second adds important behavioral detail about pagination. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or fluff.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic functional context but lacks details about authentication, error handling, return format, or performance characteristics. It's minimally adequate given the schema handles parameter documentation, but more behavioral context would be helpful.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional filtering by date range and activity type' and 'pagination', but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or usage patterns.

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 tool 'fetches complete activity history' with filtering capabilities, providing a specific verb ('fetches') and resource ('activity history'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get-recent-activities' by emphasizing 'complete' history, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 for retrieving comprehensive activity data with filtering, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get-recent-activities' or 'get-activity-details'. No guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios is provided.

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