SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

ESPN Formula 1 race list for one date with the finishing

dev_espn_f1_results

Read-only

ESPN Formula 1 race list for one date with the finishing order of the first drivers (position, driver name, winner flag) and session state, from ESPN's public site JSON. Results only as ESPN lists them; a race with no published order returns the entries it has. Related tools on this server, for a different need: dev_espn_nascar when you need ESPN NASCAR Cup Series race list for one date; dev_espn_college_football when you need ESPN college football scoreboard for one date: every game. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "dev_espn_f1_results"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`top`	No	How many finishers per race, 1 to 22 (default 10)
`date`	No	Date YYYY-MM-DD (default: yesterday UTC)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	No
`count`	No
`races`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description earns credit for adding the data source (ESPN public site JSON), the degraded-data contract ('a race with no published order returns the entries it has'), and the billing model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402, failures not charged). Rate limits and latency are unmentioned, keeping it below a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded and precise, but the related-tools sentence spends two long clauses on college football and NASCAR, which are unrelated to F1 and dilute the routing signal. The payment clause is dense but does carry decision-relevant cost information, so the issue is bloat rather than waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return shape, and it does cover the remaining agent-facing unknowns: source of truth, partial-result behavior, and per-call cost. Only a note on caching/freshness of the ESPN snapshot is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both optional parameters including the 1-22 range and the yesterday-UTC date default. The description only loosely reinforces 'top' by saying 'the first drivers', adding no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb and resource ('ESPN Formula 1 race list for one date') and specifies the payload fields returned (position, driver name, winner flag) plus session state. It also names the neighboring ESPN sports tools, so an agent can immediately tell F1 results apart from NASCAR or college football scoreboards.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'Related tools on this server, for a different need' plus two explicit redirects (dev_espn_nascar, dev_espn_college_football) gives negative routing guidance for adjacent sports. It lacks an explicit positive statement of when F1 results are the right call (e.g., post-race standings vs. live timing), but the scope is clear enough to act on.

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

All SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?