get-server-version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It says 'Returns,' implying a safe read operation, but does not explicitly state non-mutating behavior, authentication needs, or side effects. For a simple version check this is adequate yet not highly transparent.

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?

A single sentence with a clear verb and object, no filler. It is appropriately sized for a trivial utility tool.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple informational purpose, the description fully covers the necessary context. There is no missing information that would hinder correct invocation or interpretation.

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 zero parameters, so no parameter details are needed. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies, since there is nothing for the description to add beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource (Strava MCP server version and related metadata). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on athlete data, activities, and segments.

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 use when you need server version info, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. Given no sibling provides this function, the lack of contrast is minor, but the guidance is still not explicit.

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