Strava MCP Server

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 mentions that it returns a 'List of activities' and includes pagination parameters, which hints at a read-only operation. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what constitutes an 'activity' (e.g., format, fields). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by organized sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. There's no wasted verbiage.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks details on authentication, error cases, sibling differentiation, and the structure of returned activities. Without an output schema, the agent must infer the return format from the vague 'List of activities'. This is adequate but has clear gaps for a tool with multiple parameters and siblings.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by listing all four parameters ('before', 'after', 'page', 'per_page') with brief explanations in the 'Args' section. It clarifies that 'before' and 'after' are epoch timestamps for filtering, and 'page' and 'per_page' handle pagination. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail defaults or constraints like valid ranges.

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 authenticated user's activities.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('authenticated user's activities'), making it clear what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_activity' or 'get_activity_segments', which prevents a perfect score.

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 its siblings ('get_activity' and 'get_activity_segments'). It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative scenarios. The only implied usage is for retrieving the user's activities, but this is too vague for effective tool selection.

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