fastf1-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior by specifying data source, coverage constraints, return format, and providing a concrete example. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Example, Note) and every sentence adds value. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 3 parameters and comprehensive documentation needs, with no redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, parameters, return format, usage guidelines, constraints, and includes a helpful example. The output schema handles return value documentation, so the description appropriately focuses on other aspects.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides comprehensive parameter semantics beyond the bare schema: year must be 2018+, event can be race name or round number, session has specific valid values (R, Q, S, SQ, FP1, FP2, FP3) with default 'R'. This fully documents all 3 parameters with meaningful context.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('session classification/results'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying the data source (FastF1 Live Timing) and coverage (2018-present). It explicitly differentiates from get_race_results_historical in the Note section.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (year >= 2018) versus when to use an alternative (get_race_results_historical for historical results). It also specifies coverage constraints and data source context that help determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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