Strava MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation but doesn't describe return format, pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond the implied 'authenticated athlete'. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered about how the tool actually behaves.

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 communicates the essential purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for a simple list tool. Every word earns its place in conveying what the tool does.

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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable information about what the tool returns (starred segments). However, it doesn't address format, structure, or limitations of the returned data. Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no complex schema), the description is adequate but leaves questions about the actual output format.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema is fully described). The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters. With no parameters to document, the baseline score of 4 reflects that the description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('segments starred by the authenticated athlete'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-segment' or 'explore-segments', but the focus on 'starred' segments provides natural distinction. The description avoids tautology by specifying what kind of segments are listed.

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 context through 'authenticated athlete', suggesting this requires Strava authentication. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'explore-segments' (for discovery) or 'get-segment' (for specific segment details). No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites beyond authentication are mentioned.

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