Retrieve your newest Rouvy activities as compact rows with IDs, timestamps, distance, elevation, and training load for use in further analysis.
List the rider's Rouvy Activities, newest first, as compact rows (id, title, type, start, moving time, distance, elevation, TSS, IF). Use the ids with the other tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many Activities to return (1–50). | |
| offset | No | How many of the newest Activities to skip. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It discloses ordering (newest first), that rows are compact rather than full detail, and the exact field set — good transparency — but says nothing about read-only nature, result-count limits, or what happens past 50 items.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the return shape and the follow-up hint. No filler or redundancy.
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?
No output schema exists, so listing the returned columns is valuable and largely fills that gap; all parameters are schema-documented. Only minor gaps remain around read-only assurance and ceiling behavior, which are small for a simple paginated list tool.
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 coverage is 100%, so both limit and offset are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds a little beyond the schema by stating results are newest first, which clarifies what offset skips in practice.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (the rider's Rouvy Activities) plus ordering (newest first) and the exact columns returned. That shape makes it immediately distinguishable from get_activity (single item) and get_window_stats (aggregates) without opening either schema.
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?
'Use the ids with the other tools' implies this is an entry point for ID discovery, which is useful chaining context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus get_activity or the list_workouts siblings, and no stated condition for choosing it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.