get_position_changesTrack how a Formula 1 driver's position changes throughout a race, revealing overtakes and lost places lap by lap from year, Grand Prix, and driver inputs.
Track position changes throughout the race for a driver.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gp | Yes | ||
| year | Yes | ||
| 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that, not even scope constraints like whether it covers a full race or a stint, so behavioral disclosure is minimal.
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 with no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably too sparse given the undocumented parameters.
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?
The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. However, with three required parameters at 0% coverage and no usage routing, the description leaves meaningful gaps for a race-data retrieval 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden but only loosely implies that 'driver' and 'race' are inputs. It gives no format hints for year, gp, or driver naming conventions, leaving all three required parameters under-specified.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('track position changes') scoped to a driver and a race, which is clear and actionable. However, it offers no differentiation from adjacent siblings like detect_overtakes, compare_grid_to_finish, or get_live_positions that plausibly overlap.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as detect_overtakes or compare_grid_to_finish, and no prerequisites are stated. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.