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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'fetches detailed information' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' includes. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 action. Every word earns its place with no 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?

Given the simple single-parameter schema with full coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details about return values, authentication, or error cases. For a read operation with no annotations, it should ideally provide more context about what 'detailed information' includes.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'routeId' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema ('using its ID' merely restates the parameter's purpose). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 route', making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'list-athlete-routes' or 'export-route-gpx', but the specificity of 'using its ID' provides some differentiation. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling comparison.

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 'list-athlete-routes' or 'export-route-gpx'. It mentions 'using its ID' which implies you need a route ID, but doesn't state prerequisites or compare to sibling tools. This is minimal guidance without explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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