get_driver_infoRetrieve detailed Formula 1 driver information, including car number, team, and headshot, for a specified year, Grand Prix, and driver.
Get detailed driver information (number, team, headshot, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gp | Yes | ||
| year | Yes | ||
| driver | 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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description only hints at returned content (number, team, headshot) and adds no behavioral context such as data source, coverage limits, or what happens for an invalid driver/gp combination. With annotations carrying the load, a 3 is appropriate.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently sized, though it leans on an open-ended 'etc.' that adds no 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, but the description supplies no scoping guidance and no parameter format guidance for a tool with three required, undocumented arguments. Given the crowded driver-related sibling set, the definition is too thin to call correctly without experimentation.
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% and all three parameters are undocumented. The description does not explain the expected format for 'gp' (name vs round vs circuit), 'driver' (full name vs code), or 'year', so it fails to compensate for the schema gap. For a required-param tool this ambiguity is a real selection and invocation hazard.
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?
Clear verb ('Get') plus a specific resource ('detailed driver information') with sample fields (number, team, headshot). However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings like get_driver_comparison, get_driver_tyre_detail, or get_driver_standings, which an agent must choose between.
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?
No indication of when to use this versus the many other driver-oriented tools, nor what the driver/gp/year combination is meant to scope. The agent is left to infer the use case entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.