mcp-f1

Get Meetings

get_meetings

Retrieve Formula 1 meetings (Grand Prix or testing weekends) from OpenF1 by year, location, circuit, country, or meeting key to pinpoint race events.

Instructions

Fetch F1 meetings (Grand Prix or testing weekends) from OpenF1.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`year`	No	int — optional, >= 2023 (OpenF1 data starts in 2023).
`location`	No	str — optional, 1-100 chars, e.g., 'Marina Bay'.
`circuit_key`	No	int — optional, positive int. Circuit identifier.
`meeting_key`	No	int \| str — optional, positive int or 'latest'. Meeting identifier; 'latest' targets the current/most recent meeting.
`country_name`	No	str — optional, 1-100 chars, e.g., 'Singapore'.
`meeting_name`	No	str — optional, 1-100 chars, e.g., 'Singapore Grand Prix'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation by the word 'Fetch' and names the data source, but says nothing about filter-combination semantics, pagination, default scoping, or what happens when no filters are passed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

A single, tight sentence with no filler, and the subject (meetings, with a clarifying parenthetical) is front-loaded. It is efficient but perhaps overly terse for a 6-parameter tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a tool with six optional filters and no annotations, the description does not explain filtering behavior or how the tool relates to its siblings, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema with type, range, and examples. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 is 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 verb ('Fetch') and resource ('F1 meetings') and usefully clarifies domain jargon by defining a meeting as a Grand Prix or testing weekend. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_sessions, which an agent would need in order to pick correctly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (get_sessions, get_starting_grid, etc.). There is no mention of alternatives or of how the optional filters should be combined.

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