get_track_statusRetrieve Formula 1 track status changes such as yellow flags, safety cars and red flags for a chosen year, Grand Prix and session.
Get track status changes (yellow flags, safety car, red flag, etc.).
| 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the semantic content of the returned status changes, but says nothing about whether results are historical or live, scope, or ordering. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, 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 efficient sentence with the resource and content front-loaded and the enumerations adding useful clarity. No filler, though it is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.
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 the safety profile. But for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the missing usage routing and parameter semantics (especially the 'R' session default) leave it only partially complete.
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 3 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails to meet it. It never explains 'year', 'gp', or the 'session' parameter with its cryptic default 'R' (presumably race), nor any accepted session codes or format conventions, leaving key invocation details undocumented.
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 track status changes') and enumerates examples (yellow flags, safety car, red flag), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_live_track_status_history or get_race_control, so an agent cannot tell which to pick from the description alone.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With siblings like get_live_track_status_history and get_race_control_messages in the list, the description leaves the selection decision entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.