Fetches the API endpoint URL and filter metadata for a given OpenF1 endpoint name, helping you query Formula 1 data with the correct URL and filters.
Retrieve the API endpoint URL and filter metadata for a given OpenF1 endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endpoint | No | The name of the OpenF1 API endpoint (e.g., 'sessions', 'laps'). |
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 failure behavior for an unknown endpoint name, whether the lookup is local metadata or a network call, caching, or authentication. It does not contradict anything, but it discloses almost nothing beyond the bare operation.
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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and states the two returned artifacts. It is efficient with no filler, though its terseness is arguably under-specification rather than true concision.
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?
For a single-parameter, no-output-schema lookup tool this is minimally adequate, but it omits the sibling differentiation and return/error semantics that an agent needs given the crowded namespace of similarly named metadata tools.
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 the single 'endpoint' parameter is already documented with examples ('sessions', 'laps'). The description adds no further constraint, such as whether names are case-sensitive or whether the parameter is optional (required count is 0, which the description never explains).
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 (Retrieve) and resource (API endpoint URL plus filter metadata) tied to OpenF1 endpoints, so the core operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely named siblings get_api_endpoints, get_endpoint_info, and get_filter_info, leaving overlap to inference.
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 mention of alternatives, and no conditions under which this tool should be chosen over get_api_endpoints, get_endpoint_info, or get_filter_info. The agent must guess from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.