Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pitwall F1

Pitwall F1

by darshjoshi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Live Track Status History

get_live_track_status_history
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a chronological log of live track-status and session-status changes during Formula 1 sessions, with no authentication required.

Instructions

Live chronological log of track-status and session-status changes. No auth required.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_live_track_status_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful operational fact, 'No auth required', but says nothing about polling/refresh behavior or how much history is retained — relevant for a live log.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences with the substantive content front-loaded; every clause carries information and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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 described, and with zero parameters the input side is trivially complete. The only shortfall is the absence of any guidance separating this from its overlapping siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter meaning is missing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource (track-status and session-status changes) and the shape of the result (a live chronological log), so an agent knows what it returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as get_track_status or get_live_session_status, which appear to overlap.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to call this rather than get_track_status or get_live_session_status, no preconditions, and no exclusions. The word 'live' hints at real-time usage but the agent is left to infer everything about selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools