get_live_race_controlFetch live Formula 1 race control updates—flags, penalties, track-limit deletions, and safety car or virtual safety car messages—without authentication.
Live race control: flags, penalties, track-limit deletions, SC/VSC. No auth required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the description does not need to restate them. It does add one genuine behavioral fact beyond the annotations — 'No auth required' — which lowers invocation friction, but says nothing about data freshness/latency or what happens outside a live session.
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?
One compact sentence plus a short auth note, with the resource and its payload types front-loaded. No filler, no restatement of the title.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and with no parameters there is little else to cover. The only meaningful gap is the absence of any note on freshness/liveness guarantees or behavior when no session is active, which would matter for a 'live' tool.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details for a parameterless call.
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?
Names a specific resource (live race control) and enumerates the content types it returns: flags, penalties, track-limit deletions, SC/VSC. This is far more concrete than a tautology, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the non-live siblings get_race_control and get_race_control_messages beyond the 'live' prefix.
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?
The description never states when to use this tool versus the many siblings (e.g. get_race_control_messages, get_penalties, get_track_status_history). The 'live' prefix implies a current-session context, but that is inference, not guidance, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.