get_scheduleFetch the full Formula 1 race calendar for a specific year, excluding testing. Provide a year to list all scheduled Grands Prix in that season.
Get the full race calendar for a specific year (excluding testing).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds one behavioral detail — that testing sessions are filtered out — which is genuinely useful and not captured by annotations, but says nothing about ordering or coverage limits.
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 tight sentence with the core action and target front-loaded. The exclusion qualifier sits in parentheses at the end, which is efficient, though that constraint is arguably important enough to be less buried.
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 format need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a one-parameter lookup tool the description is nearly sufficient; only the year format and the relationship to list_races remain unspecified.
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 the single 'year' parameter, so the description is the only source of meaning. It does tie the parameter to a year and implies a full calendar, but adds no format or range detail (e.g., 4-digit year, valid bounds) beyond that.
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 (full race calendar) scoped to a year, and adds a meaningful boundary ('excluding testing'). It does not name or contrast with the adjacent siblings list_races or list_seasons, so an agent must infer the distinction.
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 and no mention of alternatives such as list_races or list_seasons. The only hint at scope is the parenthetical exclusion, which is a data boundary rather than usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.