Crawlora MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

openf1_team_radio

Retrieve Formula 1 team radio recordings with timestamps and MP3 URLs, filtered by meeting, session, driver, or date, to access published driver-to-team communications.

Instructions

OpenF1 Formula 1 team radio recordings. Returns published driver-to-team radio exchanges with the timestamp and an MP3 recording URL. Only a selection of communications is published and coverage is sparse; several sessions return no radio data at all.

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 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, recording_url.
`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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: sparse and sometimes empty coverage. It also states the returned fields (timestamp, MP3 recording URL). It omits pagination, result limits, and what an empty response looks like, which keeps 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences: identity, return payload, then the critical coverage caveat. Front-loaded and every sentence earns its place with no 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?

Covers purpose, return shape, and the main data-availability risk for a six-parameter read tool with no output schema. It does not address unfiltered call behavior or result volume, which matters since all parameters are optional.

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 all six parameters including the compound filter syntax are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific resource (Formula 1 team radio recordings) and what is returned: published driver-to-team exchanges with timestamp and an MP3 URL. That is enough to separate it from siblings like openf1_laps or openf1_race_control, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

Provides a useful usage caveat (only a selection is published, several sessions return nothing), which implies usage is exploratory rather than guaranteed. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of how to narrow by session/meeting/driver beyond what the schema lists.

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

Deploy Server