get_driver_standingsRetrieve Formula 1 driver championship standings for a given season, either after a specific round or for the current points table.
Get driver championship standings after a specific round or latest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes | ||
| round_number | No |
| 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, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral note that omitting the round returns the latest standings, but says nothing about data source, freshness, or pagination.
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 compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the optional-round nuance trailing. It wastes no words but is arguably too terse for the ambiguity it leaves with sibling tools.
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 described. Still, with two undocumented parameters and multiple standings siblings, the definition is only minimally complete for correct tool selection and 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%, so the description must carry the burden. It partially explains round_number as optional ("or latest") but never explains what `year` accepts or the expected format/range for round_number. Meaning added is marginal.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Get driver championship standings") and scopes it to a round or the latest, which an agent can act on. However, it does not differentiate from near-identical siblings like get_standings, get_championship_standings, and get_constructor_standings, leaving ambiguity about which standings tool to pick.
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 guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite several sibling tools covering overlapping standings data. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.