get_qualifying_progressionIdentify Formula 1 drivers eliminated in Q1 and Q2. See who advanced to Q3.
Show who was eliminated in Q1, Q2 and who made it to Q3.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gp | Yes | ||
| year | 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 fully covered. The description adds what the tool exposes (Q1/Q2 eliminations, Q3 qualifiers), which is useful framing, but reveals nothing about data availability, session requirements, or edge cases (e.g., sprint qualifying formats).
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 short sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than pure conciseness.
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 the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover safety. However, with two required, undocumented parameters and zero usage context, the definition is only minimally complete for an agent trying to supply a correct 'gp' value on the first attempt.
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% for two required parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails to mention either one. It gives no format guidance for 'gp' (event name vs. round number vs. code) or valid ranges for 'year'; only the parameter names themselves hint at meaning.
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 names a concrete verb ("Show") and a concrete resource (qualifying progression across Q1/Q2/Q3), including the specific scope of elimination vs advancement. It does not name or distinguish itself from any sibling tool, but the intent is unmistakable.
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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_session_info or get_race_results. The agent must infer that this applies to qualifying sessions at a given year and Grand Prix from the wording alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.