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 it fetches profile information and the ID, which is useful context, but lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's minimal for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 purpose and includes essential context without waste. Every part earns its place by clarifying the tool's role and its relationship to other tools.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what it does and why it's useful, but for a tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention authentication or response details to be more complete.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is high. The description adds value by explaining that it fetches profile information and the ID, which compensates for the lack of output schema. No parameters need documentation, so this exceeds the minimal requirement.

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 specific action ('Fetches') and resource ('profile information for the authenticated athlete'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get-athlete-stats' by focusing on profile data rather than statistics. It explicitly mentions the inclusion of the unique numeric ID, which is a key differentiator.

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 clear context by specifying it's for the 'authenticated athlete' and notes that the ID is needed for other tools like 'get-athlete-stats', implying usage as a prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name direct alternatives among siblings.

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