get_pit_stopsRetrieve Formula 1 pit stops for a chosen year, race, and session, ranked by stop duration to compare crew performance.
Get all pit stops sorted by fastest stop time.
Args: year: Season year race: Race name (partial match) session_type: Session type
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| race | No | ||
| year | No | ||
| session_type | No | Race |
| 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, covering the safety profile. The description adds one useful behavioral fact (results sorted by fastest stop time) and the partial-match nature of the race filter, but says nothing about pagination, default behavior, or result scope beyond what annotations provide.
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?
The single leading sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, with argument notes kept terse. No padding or redundancy, though the Args block is trivially formatted.
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 described, and only 3 optional params exist with defaults. Still, with 0% schema description coverage the agent is left guessing about default values and valid session types, which the description could cheaply have supplied.
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 carries full burden, yet it mostly restates parameter names ('Season year', 'Session type'). Only 'Race name (partial match)' adds genuine semantics. The defaults (year 2026, session_type 'Race') and valid session_type values are never explained.
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 and resource ('Get all pit stops') plus a meaningful scope detail ('sorted by fastest stop time'). However, it does not distinguish itself from closely named siblings like get_fastest_pit_stops or get_pit_stop_detail, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative among the many pit-stop-adjacent siblings. It only lists the arguments, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.