get_race_control_messagesRetrieve all race control messages from an F1 session by year and Grand Prix to track flags, penalties, and safety car periods.
Get all race control messages during a session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gp | Yes | ||
| year | Yes | ||
| session | No | R |
| 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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'all messages' completeness claim and the session scoping; it says nothing about caching, data source freshness, or volume/rate considerations that the openWorld hint implies.
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 filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity also reflects the missing detail noted in other dimensions.
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. But with 0% parameter coverage and no routing guidance against two similar siblings, the definition is only minimally complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. 'gp' abbreviation, year format, and especially the session code (default 'R', presumably Race) are left unexplained, and there is no guidance on valid session identifiers.
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 ('Get') and resource ('race control messages') with scope ('during a session'), so an agent can identify the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close siblings get_race_control and get_live_race_control, leaving the historical-vs-live boundary unstated.
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 exclusions, and no mention of the near-duplicate siblings get_race_control or get_live_race_control. An agent has no stated basis for choosing this tool over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.