get_live_time_gapsFetch live Formula 1 timing gaps to the leader and intervals to the car ahead per driver, adapting output for race versus qualifying or practice sessions.
Live gap to leader and interval to car ahead per driver, mode-aware (race gap vs quali/practice fastest). 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 (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds 'No auth required' and clarifies that returned values are mode-dependent (race gap vs quali/practice fastest), which is genuine behavioral context beyond the structured fields.
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, front-loaded sentence that packs the resource, scope, mode semantics, and auth note without filler. The parenthetical is dense but earns its place by disambiguating the metric's meaning.
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 annotations plus the mode-aware note give the agent enough to call it correctly. The only gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from get_gap_to_leader, which the description does not resolve.
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 are no parameters for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; schema coverage is trivially complete and nothing is missing.
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 resource with scope: 'gap to leader and interval to car ahead per driver', plus the mode-aware qualifier. It is clearly distinguishable from data tools like get_lap_times, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly-named get_gap_to_leader sibling.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The only routing signal is the word 'Live', which merely implies it applies during an active session; the agent must infer context 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.