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 states the tool 'Get details' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, error handling, or response format beyond 'The activity details.' For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse. It's concise with no wasted words, though the Args section could be more integrated into the main text for better flow.

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 the complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on error cases, authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'activity details' include, which are crucial for proper tool invocation. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It explains that 'activity_id' is 'The ID of the activity' and 'include_all_efforts' is 'Whether to include all segment efforts,' which clarifies purpose but doesn't provide format details or examples. With 0% schema description coverage, this partially compensates but remains basic, aligning with the baseline expectation when schema coverage is low.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get details of a specific activity.' This is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('activity'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_activity_segments' or 'get_user_activities', which likely retrieve related but different data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_activity_segments' (which might retrieve parts of an activity) or 'get_user_activities' (which might list multiple activities), leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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