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 mentions 'Lists' and 'filtering by date', but does not describe pagination behavior (implied by 'perPage' in schema but not explained), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the output looks like. 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 front-loads the core purpose ('Lists the authenticated athlete's efforts on a specific segment') and adds optional filtering information. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 4 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate for a read-only list tool but incomplete. It covers the purpose and basic filtering, but lacks details on authentication, pagination behavior, error handling, or return format, which are important for a tool with no structured output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying date filtering, but does not provide additional semantics or usage context for parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('Lists'), the resource ('the authenticated athlete's efforts on a specific segment'), and includes optional filtering by date. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get-segment-effort' (singular) and 'get-all-activities' (broader scope), making the purpose precise and differentiated.

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 usage for listing efforts on a segment with optional date filtering, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-all-activities' or 'get-segment-effort'. It provides some context (filtering by date) but lacks guidance on exclusions or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings.

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