Retrieve a driver's championship standings for a specific year. Provide the season and full driver name to get their points and position.
Get the championship standing for a specific driver in a given year.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | The season year | |
| driver_name | No | Full name of the driver (e.g., 'Lewis Hamilton') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about the return shape (single position vs. full standings), what happens when a driver is absent from a season, or the default-year behavior. It only restates the scope already implied by the name.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with the subject (championship standing) front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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?
No output schema and no annotations exist to carry behavioral detail, so the description must compensate and does not. An agent cannot tell what the response contains (position, points, list of standings) or how a missing driver is handled before calling it.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema (year with default 2026, driver_name with an example). The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already supplies, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (championship standing) scoped to a specific driver and year, which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling constructor_championship_standings. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and never mentions alternatives such as f1_mcp_server_constructor_championship_standings or f1_mcp_server_get_driver_info. Usage is only weakly implied by the driver/year scoping.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.