F
licenseNot graded
qualityD
maintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that provides language models with access to personal Whoop fitness data, allowing queries for cycles, recovery, strain, and workout information from the Whoop API.
26
Strava MCP Server
by tomekkorbak
The Strava MCP Server allows language models to query authenticated athlete activities data from the Strava API.
Fetch Recent Activities: Retrieve the athlete's recent activities with optional limits
Query by Date Range: Get activities within a specific date range
Retrieve Activity Details: Access detailed information about a specific activity using its ID
Get Recent Activities by Days: Fetch activities from the past X days
Provides access to the Strava API, allowing queries for athlete activities including recent activities, activities by date range, specific activity details, and activities from a recent time period. Data returned includes activity metrics like distance, time, speed, elevation, and calories.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Strava MCP Servershow me my activities from last week"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Strava MCP Server
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides access to the Strava API. It allows language models to query athlete activities data from the Strava API.
Available Tools
The server exposes the following tools:
Activities Queries
get_activities(limit: int = 10): Get the authenticated athlete's recent activitiesget_activities_by_date_range(start_date: str, end_date: str, limit: int = 30): Get activities within a specific date rangeget_activity_by_id(activity_id: int): Get detailed information about a specific activityget_recent_activities(days: int = 7, limit: int = 10): Get activities from the past X days
Dates should be provided in ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD).
Related MCP server: Strava MCP Server
Activity Data Format
The server returns activity data with consistent field names and units:
Field | Description | Unit |
| Activity name | - |
| Type of sport | - |
| Start date and time | ISO 8601 |
| Distance | meters |
| Total elapsed time | seconds |
| Moving time | seconds |
| Average speed | meters per second |
| Maximum speed | meters per second |
| Total elevation gain | meters |
| Highest elevation | meters |
| Lowest elevation | meters |
| Calories burned | kcal |
| Start coordinates | [lat, lng] |
| End coordinates | [lat, lng] |
Authentication
To use this server, you'll need to authenticate with the Strava API. Follow these steps:
Create a Strava API application:
Go to Strava API Settings
Create an application to get your Client ID and Client Secret
Set the Authorization Callback Domain to
localhost
Get your refresh token:
Use the included
get_strava_token.pyscript:
python get_strava_token.pyFollow the prompts to authorize your application
The script will save your tokens to a
.envfile
Set environment variables: The server requires the following environment variables:
STRAVA_CLIENT_ID: Your Strava API Client IDSTRAVA_CLIENT_SECRET: Your Strava API Client SecretSTRAVA_REFRESH_TOKEN: Your Strava API Refresh Token
Usage
Claude for Desktop
Update your claude_desktop_config.json (located in ~/Library/Application\ Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json on macOS and %APPDATA%/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json on Windows) to include the following:
{
"mcpServers": {
"strava": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"strava-mcp-server"
],
"env": {
"STRAVA_CLIENT_ID": "YOUR_CLIENT_ID",
"STRAVA_CLIENT_SECRET": "YOUR_CLIENT_SECRET",
"STRAVA_REFRESH_TOKEN": "YOUR_REFRESH_TOKEN"
}
}
}
}Claude Web
For Claude Web, you can run the server locally and connect it using the MCP extension.
Example Queries
Once connected, you can ask Claude questions like:
"What are my recent activities?"
"Show me my activities from last week"
"What was my longest run in the past month?"
"Get details about my latest cycling activity"
Error Handling
The server provides human-readable error messages for common issues:
Invalid date formats
API authentication errors
Network connectivity problems
License
This project is licensed under the MIT License - see the LICENSE file for details.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_activitiesB
Get the authenticated athlete's recent activities.
Args:
limit: Maximum number of activities to return (default: 10)
Returns:
Dictionary containing activities data
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
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 mentions authentication ('authenticated athlete') but doesn't specify required permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens if no activities exist. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 well-structured and concise, using three clear sections: a purpose statement, parameter explanation, and return value note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter but misses behavioral details like error handling or response format. The return statement is vague ('Dictionary containing activities data'), leaving gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'limit' by explaining it's the 'Maximum number of activities to return (default: 10)'. Since schema description coverage is 0% and there's only one parameter, this adequately compensates. However, it doesn't detail constraints like minimum/maximum values or how ordering works.
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 tool's purpose: 'Get the authenticated athlete's recent activities.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('activities'), and scope ('authenticated athlete's recent'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'get_recent_activities' or 'get_activities_by_date_range', which appear to serve similar functions.
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. With sibling tools like 'get_recent_activities' and 'get_activities_by_date_range' available, there's no indication of differences in scope, filtering, or use cases. This leaves the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_activities_by_date_rangeB
Get activities within a specific date range.
Args:
start_date: Start date in ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD)
end_date: End date in ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD)
limit: Maximum number of activities to return (default: 30)
Returns:
Dictionary containing activities data
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| start_date | Yes | ||
| end_date | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves activities but doesn't mention critical aspects like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or pagination behavior. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, using bullet points for readability. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently explains parameters without unnecessary details. However, the 'Returns' section is vague ('Dictionary containing activities data'), slightly reducing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It excels in parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. Without an output schema, the vague return statement ('Dictionary containing activities data') is a minor gap, but overall, it meets a baseline for a read operation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds substantial value beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explicitly defines each parameter's purpose and format (e.g., 'start_date: Start date in ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD)'), including the default for 'limit.' This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, making parameters clear and actionable.
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 tool's purpose as 'Get activities within a specific date range,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_activities' or 'get_recent_activities,' which likely have overlapping functionality.
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_activities' or 'get_recent_activities.' It mentions date range filtering but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over other tools, leaving the agent without clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_activity_by_idC
Get detailed information about a specific activity.
Args:
activity_id: ID of the activity to retrieve
Returns:
Dictionary containing activity details
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| activity_id | Yes |
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 the tool retrieves information, implying it is read-only, but does not specify authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails. The description lacks behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections add structure, but the return description ('Dictionary containing activity details') is vague and could be more informative. Overall, it is concise with little waste.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'detailed information' includes, potential errors, or how this tool fits with siblings. For a retrieval tool with undocumented behavior and output, more context is needed to guide 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?
The description adds minimal semantics: it names the parameter ('activity_id') and states it is 'ID of the activity to retrieve,' which clarifies the parameter's role. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description does not fully compensate by explaining format constraints or examples, so it scores slightly lower.
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 tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific activity.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('activity'), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_activities' or 'get_activities_by_date_range' beyond implying retrieval of a single activity by ID.
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. It does not mention sibling tools or contexts where this tool is preferred, such as for retrieving a single known activity versus listing multiple activities. Usage is implied by the parameter name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_recent_activitiesB
Get activities from the past X days.
Args:
days: Number of days to look back (default: 7)
limit: Maximum number of activities to return (default: 10)
Returns:
Dictionary containing activities data
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| limit | No |
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves activities but doesn't mention critical aspects like permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The return format is vaguely described as a 'Dictionary containing activities data' without detailing structure or content.
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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, and the formatting enhances readability. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with two parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or data format, and it doesn't provide usage guidance relative to siblings. Given the low complexity, it's minimally viable but has clear gaps in transparency and guidelines.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for both parameters beyond the schema's basic types and defaults. It explains that 'days' specifies 'Number of days to look back' and 'limit' sets the 'Maximum number of activities to return', which clarifies their functional roles. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well for the schema's lack of semantic detail.
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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('activities'), specifying a time-based scope ('from the past X days'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_activity_by_id' by focusing on recent activities, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_activities' or 'get_activities_by_date_range'.
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_activities_by_date_range' or 'get_activities'. It mentions a time-based scope but doesn't clarify if this is the preferred method for recent activities or when other tools might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes that could cause confusion. get_activities and get_recent_activities both retrieve recent activities with similar parameters, while get_activities_by_date_range provides date-based filtering that could also be used for recent activities. Only get_activity_by_id has a clearly distinct purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case formatting. The naming is perfectly consistent across all four tools, making them predictable and easy to understand at a glance.
Tool Count3/5
With only 4 tools, this feels thin for a Strava server that presumably handles athlete activities. While the count is reasonable for a minimal implementation, it lacks coverage for other Strava domains like segments, clubs, or athlete profiles that would be expected.
Completeness2/5
The tool surface is severely incomplete for a Strava integration. While it provides multiple ways to read activities, there are no tools for creating, updating, or deleting activities, nor any coverage of other Strava resources like segments, clubs, gear, or athlete statistics. This creates significant gaps that will limit agent capabilities.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessUnresponsive
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
Strava MCP tools for AI: athletes, activities, segments, clubs, routes. Powered by HAPI MCP server.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Pace is a remote MCP server that exposes wearable and fitness data to Claude via the Model Context Protocol. It connects to Garmin, Oura, Whoop, Polar, Fitbit and 20+ devices and provides 15 tools for querying sleep, activity, recovery, and training data. Hosted on Google Cloud Run, OAuth 2.1 authentication, Streamable HTTP transport. Instructions: First you need to create an account at: https://pacetraining.co and connect your wearables. After that you can connect the remote Server via Custom Connector in Claude and OAuth 2.1 Flow startet.
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables language models to interact with Strava data, including activities, athlete statistics, routes, achievements, and social features.6MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables users to access Strava fitness data, including user activities, activity details, segments, and leaderboards through a structured API interface.34MIT
- AlicenseAqualityFmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for Intervals.icu integration. Access your training data, wellness metrics, and performance analysis through Claude and other LLMs.4835MIT
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/tomekkorbak/strava-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server