get_lap_times_fastf1Retrieve all lap times for a specific driver in a Formula 1 session, including tyre compound and stint life, for detailed race analysis.
Get all lap times for a driver via FastF1 — includes compound and tyre life per lap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gp | Yes | ||
| year | Yes | ||
| driver | Yes | ||
| session | No | R |
| 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 openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful payload detail ('includes compound and tyre life per lap') but says nothing about session handling, rate limits, or data-source caveats that a historical FastF1 fetch might carry.
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 tightly written sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters, but it wastes no words.
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 explained, but with 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage and an unexplained default session code, the description leaves the agent guessing on invocation details. For a tool with four inputs and a required year/gp/driver triple, more context is needed.
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 schema itself documents none of the 4 parameters. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning — notably it never explains the 'gp' identifier format or that 'session' uses codes like 'R' for race, despite that being the only non-obvious parameter.
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+resource ('Get all lap times for a driver') and adds the data-source qualifier 'via FastF1', which helps separate it from the sibling get_lap_times and get_live_lap_times. It does not explicitly say when FastF1 lap times are preferable, but the resource and source are unambiguous.
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 guidance on when to use this over get_lap_times, get_live_lap_times, get_tyre_strategy, or get_team_laps. The only implicit signal is the 'FastF1' source tag; there is no stated condition, prerequisite, or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.