get_weather_dataRetrieve detailed rain, track temperature, and wind conditions for a Formula 1 Grand Prix session by year and event.
Get detailed weather conditions (Rain, Track Temp, Wind).
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only the categories of weather data returned (Rain, Track Temp, Wind), but says nothing about granularity, time resolution, or how it relates to the live weather sibling.
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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no padding or redundant clauses. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification on the dimensions above.
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, and annotations cover behavior. But with three undocumented parameters and two confusable weather siblings, the description leaves real gaps an agent needs closed before calling correctly.
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 supplies no meaning for any of the three parameters: it never mentions year, gp, or the session code (default 'R'). The agent gets no hint that 'session' distinguishes race from qualifying or practice, which is exactly the kind of gap the description should fill when the schema is silent.
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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Get ... weather conditions') and enumerates the specific data points (Rain, Track Temp, Wind), which is more concrete than a bare name restatement. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the near-identical siblings get_weather and get_live_weather, leaving the agent unsure which one to pick.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_weather or get_live_weather, nor any mention of required context such as year/GP/session. The agent must infer that this is the historical weather endpoint purely from the sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.