get_race_resultsFull iRacing race results including finish order (P1, P2, P3), laps completed, incidents, iRating changes, and weather/track info. Takes a subsession_id (from search_hosted_races). Requires active iRacing subscription. Costs $0.02 USDC per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| subsession_id | Yes | iRacing subsession ID (from search_hosted_races) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive. Description adds useful behavioral context: cost per call and subscription requirement, which annotations do not cover.
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 concise sentences: first defines output content, second gives usage context. No wasted words.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and good annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, input source, prerequisites, and cost. Could mention result format or limits, but not essential.
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 covers 100% of the single parameter. Description adds cross-tool context ('from search_hosted_races'), providing value beyond the schema.
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?
Clearly states it returns full iRacing race results including finish order, laps, incidents, iRating, and weather. Distinguishes from sibling search_hosted_races which provides the subsession_id.
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?
Explicitly states it takes a subsession_id from search_hosted_races, requires active subscription, and costs $0.02. Does not explicitly list when not to use but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: status checks, race search, race results, driver lookup, and web search. The two race-related tools are complementary (search returns subsession IDs used by get_race_results), not overlapping.
All tool names follow the verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_, search_, lookup_). The verbs are appropriate and consistent, with no mixing of conventions or camelCase.
With only 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its stated purpose as an x402 facilitator offering iRacing data and web search. Each tool earns its place and there is no bloat.
The race search-to-results flow is complete, and driver lookup and web search work standalone. However, lookup_driver requires a customer ID with no way to discover IDs from within the tool set (no driver search by name), leaving a minor gap.