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[s] the segments' and returns a 'List of segment efforts for the activity', which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'segment efforts' entail. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first ('Get the segments of a specific activity.'). The Args and Returns sections are structured but could be more integrated. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the separation into sections might slightly reduce flow. Overall, it's efficient with little waste.

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 (a read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'segment efforts' are, how the list is structured, or any behavioral aspects like pagination or errors. For a tool with no structured data support, 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 meaning beyond the input schema. It mentions 'activity_id: The ID of the activity', which is already clear from the schema's title 'Activity Id' and type 'integer'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by providing additional context, such as where to find the activity ID or format requirements. However, since there's only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but it still lacks enrichment.

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 the segments of a specific activity.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('segments of a specific activity'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_activity' or 'get_user_activities' in terms of what specific data it returns versus those tools.

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' or 'get_user_activities', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for choosing this tool over others. The only implied usage is when you need segments for a specific activity, but this is basic and lacks comparative guidance.

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