get_live_sector_timesFetch live Formula 1 sector times and speed trap data for one driver using their three-letter code or car number, with no authentication needed.
Live sector times + speed trap for one driver (TLA or car number). No auth required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only 'No auth required', which is mildly useful setup context but does not disclose behavior such as what happens outside a live session or how fresh the data is.
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?
Two compact sentences with the resource, scope, and parameter format front-loaded and no filler. Every clause earns its place.
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 explanation, and the description covers scope, identifier format, and auth. It stops short of noting that results depend on a live session being active, which is the one remaining ambiguity 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: it specifies that 'driver' accepts a TLA or a car number, which the bare string schema does not convey. The accepted format is the key detail an agent needs to invoke this correctly.
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 and scope: live sector times plus speed trap data for a single driver. It is distinguishable from get_live_speed_trap and get_live_mini_sectors because it explicitly bundles both sector and speed-trap output, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the boundary.
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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as get_live_mini_sectors or get_live_best_sectors. 'No auth required' is an access note, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.