Retrieve detailed information about a specific Formula 1 constructor by providing the team's full name, such as Red Bull Racing or Ferrari.
Retrieve detailed information about a specific constructor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| constructor_name | No | Full name of the constructor (e.g., 'Red Bull Racing') | McLaren |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' weakly implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about what 'detailed information' contains, whether the data is live or cached, or any auth/rate-limit constraints.
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 short sentence with the verb and object front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.
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 one-parameter enumerated lookup this is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema the vague phrase 'detailed information' leaves the agent unsure what fields to expect. Minimal but acceptable coverage.
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% and the single parameter is fully enumerated with a default and an example, so the schema does all the work. The description adds no extra meaning about the constructor_name argument, making the baseline 3 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 and resource ('Retrieve detailed information about a specific constructor'), which is clear enough to distinguish from get_driver_info and the standings/update siblings by resource type. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than read it.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_constructor_championship_standings or update_constructors. The agent must guess the boundary from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.