get_stint_analysisAnalyze each stint's tyre compound, lap times, and degradation to assess a Formula 1 driver's performance in a specific year and Grand Prix.
Analyze each stint: compound, lap times, degradation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gp | Yes | ||
| year | Yes | ||
| driver | 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, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it analyzes compound, lap times, and degradation, which gives some behavioral context about what the tool computes, but it does not disclose whether results are live or historical, aggregated, or returned in any particular format.
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 wasted words. It is terse but appropriately sized for a simple analysis tool, though the colon list structure is minimal.
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?
The output schema exists and annotations cover safety, but the description fails to compensate for the 0% parameter schema coverage and gives no sibling differentiation. An agent cannot confidently distinguish this from get_live_stint_history or get_tyre_strategy, nor know how to interpret year/gp/driver.
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% and the description does not mention any of the three required parameters (year, gp, driver). It provides no format, range, or meaning guidance, leaving the agent to guess how to supply the inputs.
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 clear verb (Analyze) and resource (each stint), and lists the analysis dimensions (compound, lap times, degradation). It does not differentiate from siblings like get_live_stint_history or get_tyre_strategy, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance is provided. The agent must infer that this is a historical stint analysis tool rather than a live or strategy tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.