Strava MCP Server

get-segment

Fetch detailed information about a specific Strava segment using its unique ID to analyze performance data and segment characteristics.

Instructions

Fetches detailed information about a specific segment using its ID.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "segmentId": "<segmentId>"
    },
    "name": "get-segment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`segmentId`	Yes	The unique identifier of the segment to fetch.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 18, 2025

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 it 'fetches detailed information' but doesn't specify what 'detailed' includes, whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, potential error cases, or authentication requirements. For a tool in a context with many siblings and no structured output, more context is needed for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'segmentId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying it's used to fetch a segment, which aligns with the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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 segment'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get-segment-effort' or 'list-segment-efforts', which reduces its differentiation value.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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-segment-effort' or 'list-segment-efforts'. It mentions using a segment ID but doesn't specify prerequisites, such as needing an authenticated connection or when this is the appropriate fetch method.

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