teammate_head_to_headQualifying and race head-to-head between two drivers who were teammates (from 1981), overall and per season, for each team they shared.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| driver_a | Yes | Kerbside driver slug, e.g. "lewis-hamilton" (use the search tool) | |
| driver_b | Yes | Kerbside driver slug, e.g. "lewis-hamilton" (use the search tool) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: the 1981 cutoff and the overall/per-season/per-team breakdown of results. It does not say what happens if the two drivers were never teammates, which is the main behavioral risk here.
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?
One sentence, zero padding, with the core resource named first and the qualifying conditions (teammates, 1981, overall/per season/per team) following efficiently.
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?
There is no output schema, yet the description already outlines the result shape (overall and per-season, broken down by shared team), and annotations carry the safety profile. For a simple two-parameter lookup this is enough to call it correctly.
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 coverage is 100% and both params carry slug format examples plus a pointer to the search tool, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description contributes only the implicit constraint that the two slugs must form an actual teammate pairing, with no additional format or ordering semantics.
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 names a specific resource (qualifying and race head-to-head) and a precise scope (two drivers who were teammates, from 1981, overall and per season, per shared team). It is easily distinguished from siblings like power_ranking or driver_milestones, which do not involve pairwise teammate comparisons.
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?
Usage is implied by the scoping clause 'between two drivers who were teammates' — an agent can infer this tool only applies to a teammate pairing — but no alternative is named and no guidance is given for non-teammate pairs or for choosing this over power_ranking/driver_milestones.
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.