Crawlora MCP

openf1_team_radio

Read-only

List published team-radio clips for a session, returning driver_number, timestamp and recording URL. Use session_key with driver_number to follow one driver; coverage varies by session so an empty result is valid (count 0), and a live-session call returns 503. For finer queries, add repeatable filter= (operators >=, <=, =, >, <) to narrow by date, e.g. filter=date>=2026-11-07; repeated filters on one attribute are OR'ed and ranges are inclusive.

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": "openf1_team_radio"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`filter`	No	Repeatable upstream filter expression written as <attribute><operator><value> with operators >=, <=, =, > and <. Repeated filters on the same attribute are OR'ed, ranges are inclusive, and unknown attributes or values are rejected before the upstream call.
`date_to`	No	Optional recording upper bound; RFC3339 or YYYY-MM-DD.
`date_from`	No	Optional recording lower bound; RFC3339 or YYYY-MM-DD.
`meeting_key`	No	Optional positive meeting key, or latest.
`session_key`	No	Optional positive session key, or latest.
`driver_number`	No	Optional positive driver number.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: empty results are legitimate (count 0), live-session calls fail with 503, and invalid filter attributes/values are rejected before the upstream call. It does not cover pagination or rate limits, so a 4 rather than 5.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then usage, then the filter mechanism. The second and third sentences are dense and carry several clauses each (OR semantics, inclusive ranges, rejection behavior), but every clause is informative rather than filler.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies what the structured fields cannot: error behavior (503 on live sessions), valid-empty-result semantics, and filter semantics. Minor redundancy in re-listing returned fields that the output schema already defines.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining the filter grammar, listing the supported operators, noting OR semantics for repeated attributes, stating ranges are inclusive, and giving a worked example (filter=date>=2026-11-07). date_from/date_to are left to the schema.

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 specific verb and resource ('List published team-radio clips for a session') and enumerates the returned fields (driver_number, timestamp, recording URL), which cleanly separates it from data-oriented siblings like openf1_car_data or openf1_laps.

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?

Gives concrete usage patterns: pair session_key with driver_number to follow one driver, and add filter expressions for finer narrowing. It also sets expectations for edge outcomes (empty result is valid, live sessions return 503). No explicit 'when not to use' or named alternative tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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

All Crawlora MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?