get_session_summaryFetch a concise summary of a Formula 1 session, including key results and data, for a given year, Grand Prix, and session type.
Get a comprehensive quick summary of 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, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what the summary contains, what data sources it aggregates, or any scoping/cost behavior.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no filler and the action is front-loaded, but the phrase 'comprehensive quick summary' is vague and slightly self-contradictory rather than informative. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.
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 explained, and annotations cover safety. However, with 0% parameter documentation and no guidance for selecting this tool over numerous similarly named siblings, the definition is not complete enough for confident invocation.
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 all three parameters, and the description says nothing about them. Critical format details are missing: 'gp' is presumably a Grand Prix identifier and 'session' a code (default 'R') whose allowed 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?
The description restates the tool name and title nearly verbatim ('get a summary of a session'), with no specific verb+resource distinction. It also contradicts itself internally ('comprehensive quick summary') without clarifying what is summarized. With ~70 siblings including get_session_info, get_race_info, and get_race_results, no differentiation is offered.
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 get_session_info or get_race_info, which an agent would need to disambiguate these closely named tools. Usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.