Crawlora MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

openf1_location

Fetch approximate Formula 1 car position samples at roughly 3.7 Hz in circuit 3D coordinates (x, y, z), filtered by driver number and date window to keep responses small.

Instructions

OpenF1 Formula 1 car position samples. Returns the approximate car position at roughly 3.7 Hz in the circuit's 3D coordinate system (x, y, z). The origin is arbitrary and is not tied to a point on the track, and lateral placement is not carried. Always pass driver_number and a date window to keep the response small.

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_location"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`filter`	No	Repeatable upstream filter written as <attribute><operator><value>, with operators >=, <=, =, > and <. Repeated filters on the same attribute are OR'ed, a lower and upper bound form an inclusive range, and different attributes are AND'ed. Filterable attributes on this route: meeting_key, session_key, driver_number, date, x, y, z.
`date_to`	No	Inclusive upper bound; RFC3339 timestamp or YYYY-MM-DD example(2026-11-08)
`date_from`	No	Inclusive lower bound; RFC3339 timestamp or YYYY-MM-DD example(2026-11-07)
`meeting_key`	No	Positive meeting key from openf1-meetings, or `latest` for the current meeting example(1299)
`session_key`	No	Positive session key from openf1-sessions, or `latest` for the current session example(11408)
`driver_number`	No	Positive permanent driver number (see openf1-drivers) example(1)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.17.20Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does a good job on the parts that matter for this data: it discloses the sampling rate (~3.7 Hz), the coordinate frame, the fact that the origin is arbitrary and not tied to a track point, and that lateral placement is not carried. Those last two are exactly the kind of caveat that would otherwise cause misinterpretation. It omits any mention of permissions, rate limits, or pagination/response-cap behavior, which keeps it from 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, each earning its place: what the data is, how to interpret the coordinate frame, and how to call it cheaply. The interpretive caveat (arbitrary origin, no lateral) is front-loaded with the purpose rather than buried. No filler or restatement of the schema.

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 six-parameter read endpoint with no output schema, the description covers what an agent most needs: the meaning and limitations of the returned coordinates and a response-size control. Missing is any statement of what a result record contains beyond x/y/z (e.g. which key/timestamp fields accompany each sample) or whether results are truncated. Those are modest gaps given no output schema is provided.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the per-parameter text by recommending a specific combination (driver_number plus a date window) as the way to keep responses small. That is invocation guidance the schema cannot express. It does not explain how the repeatable filter expression interacts with the top-level convenience params, which is a remaining gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific resource (OpenF1 Formula 1 car position samples) and pins down the shape of the data: roughly 3.7 Hz samples in the circuit's 3D x/y/z coordinate system. That is far more informative than a restated title and lets an agent distinguish this from generic position or telemetry tools. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the nearby sibling openf1_position, which is the one ambiguity left.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

There is a clear prescriptive guideline — 'Always pass driver_number and a date window to keep the response small' — which is actionable invocation advice. However, it gives no when-to-use versus when-not guidance and never names an alternative (e.g. openf1_position) for the case where a different position representation is wanted. Usage is implied by the data semantics rather than stated as selection criteria.

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

Deploy Server