Strava MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'fetches' which implies a read operation, but doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements (though hinted by 'authenticated athlete'), rate limits, pagination behavior, or what 'most recent' means (e.g., time-based cutoff). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with an external API.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 complexity of fetching activities from what appears to be a Strava API (based on sibling tools), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'activities' include, the return format, error conditions, or how 'most recent' is determined, leaving too many unknowns for effective tool use.

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 'perPage' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('most recent activities for the authenticated athlete'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-all-activities' or 'get-activity-details', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 like 'get-all-activities' or 'get-activity-details'. It mentions 'most recent activities' but doesn't clarify if this is a subset of all activities or a different endpoint, leaving usage context implied at best.

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