f1verse MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Pairs that ran nose-to-tail, and for how long.

f1_battles

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find lap-by-lap F1 battles by season and round: pairs that held consecutive positions within 1.5 seconds for at least three laps, including the closest gap.

Instructions

Pairs that ran nose-to-tail, and for how long. Every stretch where two cars held consecutive positions within 1.5 seconds for at least three laps, with the closest the gap got. Finds the fights a results table hides — a scrap for eighth that ran twenty laps never shows up in the standings.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "year": "<year>",
      "round": "<round>"
    },
    "name": "f1_battles"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`year`	Yes	Season year, e.g. 2026. Race data 2023+.
`round`	Yes	Round number within the season, 1-based.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.15.0Nov 9, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / round / minimum
```
Added value: +1
```
addedInput schema / properties / year / minimum
```
Added value: +1950
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "result": {
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the detection thresholds (1.5s, three laps, consecutive positions) that determine what counts as a battle, which is not inferable from annotations. It does not discuss volume, pagination, or the 2023+ data boundary, though the latter appears in the schema and an output schema exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero waste. The hard definition is front-loaded and the second sentence explains why the tool exists rather than restating the title. The 'scrap for eighth that ran twenty laps' example earns its place by making the metric concrete.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter, read-only analytical tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the definition is nearly complete: an agent knows what qualifies as a battle and why to call it. Minor gaps remain around the 2023+ data boundary and whether thresholds are fixed, but neither blocks correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, including the year range and the note that race data starts in 2023, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing parameter-specific — no discussion of year/round semantics or what a missing round means. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a precise operational definition of the resource: every stretch where two cars held consecutive positions within 1.5 seconds for at least three laps, plus the minimum gap. That level of specificity makes it separable from results-oriented siblings such as f1_session_results or f1_running_order, which the closing line implicitly contrasts ('the fights a results table hides').

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the 'finds the fights a results table hides' framing tells the agent this is a narrative/analysis tool, not a standings lookup. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many siblings (f1_turning_points, f1_pace_changes, f1_race_story).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.