get_sprint_resultsFetch Formula 1 sprint race results by year and Grand Prix to review sprint weekend classifications, finishing order, and driver points.
Get sprint race results (for sprint weekends).
| 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 readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added behavior is the sprint-weekend applicability constraint; it says nothing about return shape, empty results for non-sprint events, or error 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing parameter and alternative guidance.
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. However, for a tool with two fully undocumented required parameters and many results-oriented siblings, the definition leaves the gp input convention and the sprint-vs-normal-race routing unresolved.
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 both required params (year, gp), and the description adds no format guidance at all. The 'gp' string is highly ambiguous (round number, country name, circuit, event code) and the description does not resolve it, leaving the agent to guess.
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 and resource ('Get sprint race results') and the parenthetical 'for sprint weekends' scopes it away from the general race-results tool. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_race_results and get_historical_results, though it never names them.
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?
The clause 'for sprint weekends' implies when this tool applies, which is a minimal usage signal. It does not state what to use on non-sprint weekends (get_race_results) or what happens if called for a normal Grand Prix.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.