get_team_lapsRetrieve every lap time for both drivers of a chosen Formula 1 team by year, Grand Prix and session.
Get all laps for a specific team (both drivers).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gp | Yes | ||
| team | 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description's help. The description adds only the "both drivers" scope note; it says nothing about data source, session dependency, or result volume. With annotations carrying most of the load, a 3 is fair.
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 short sentence with the scope qualifier front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined 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 described. However, for a 4-parameter data-fetch tool with zero schema descriptions and many overlapping lap-related siblings, the description leaves an agent without the parameter format details or routing guidance needed to call it confidently.
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 four parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains the expected format of gp, the meaning of year, what team identifiers are accepted, or what session codes are valid (the schema shows only a bare default of "R"). The heavy lifting for parameter guidance is missing entirely.
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 all laps for a specific team") and clarifies scope with "(both drivers)", which tells the agent the return set covers two drivers rather than one. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_lap_times or get_lap_times_fastf1, which appear to fetch similar lap data for other scopes.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus get_lap_times, get_lap_times_fastf1, or get_live_lap_times. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the team-scoped variant, with no stated conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.