get_dnf_listRetrieve the list of Formula 1 drivers who did not finish a specific race and the reasons for their retirement, given the year and Grand Prix.
Get list of drivers who did not finish the race and reasons.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gp | Yes | ||
| year | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The only added behavioral content is that reasons for retirement are included in the payload, which is mild return-shape information rather than operational context (no rate limits, no pagination, no scope caveats).
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably too short given the ambiguity left elsewhere.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, but with 0% parameter coverage the description should at least disambiguate the required 'gp' and 'year' inputs and note that this is race-scoped rather than session-scoped. Those gaps matter for correct invocation.
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 0% for both parameters, and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. It never clarifies what 'gp' should be (circuit name, round number, or session key) or what year format is expected, leaving a real ambiguity for a required argument.
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: retrieving the list of drivers who did not finish, plus the reasons. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not distinguish itself from adjacent result-oriented siblings such as get_race_results or get_historical_results, which likely also touch DNF data.
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 explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent must infer that this is for DNF-specific queries rather than pulling race results and filtering.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.