Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
f1verse MCP Server

f1verse MCP Server

by jinsim
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

A Formula 1 venue's winners, pole conversion and records.

f1_circuit_history
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves a Formula 1 circuit's historical results: event counts, recent winners and their starting positions, pole-to-win conversion, and most successful drivers. Use after f1_circuit_directory to resolve the circuit id.

Instructions

A Formula 1 venue's winners, pole conversion and records. Historical results at one circuit: every event count, recent winners and their starting positions, pole-to-win conversion, and the most successful drivers. Use f1_circuit_directory first to discover the stable circuit id; this is results history, so it does not assign a modern map to an older layout.

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": {
      "circuit_id": "<circuit_id>"
    },
    "name": "f1_circuit_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
circuit_idYesStable circuit id from f1_circuit_directory, e.g. 'monza', 'spa' or 'nurburgring'.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.15.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "result": {
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the response is historical aggregate results (counts, conversions, leaderboards) and, importantly, it will not resolve an old layout to a modern map. It says nothing about pagination or how many events are returned, though the output schema covers shape.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource and outputs before the prerequisite and the caveat. The middle clause is a dense but purposeful enumeration. Slightly repetitive in restating the title's phrasing, but no sentence is wasted.

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 single-parameter, read-only query with an output schema, the definition covers what it returns, how to obtain the required id, and the one non-obvious limitation about historical layouts. What remains missing (result volume, time span defaults) is modest given the output schema documents the response.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description already gives the id format and examples ('monza', 'spa', 'nurburgring'). The description reinforces that the id must be the stable one sourced from f1_circuit_directory, which is a mild but real addition. It adds no further format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 first sentence names the resource (a Formula 1 venue) and the exact content returned (winners, pole conversion, records), and the second enumerates the concrete outputs: event count, recent winners with starting positions, pole-to-win conversion, most successful drivers. The closing clause explicitly separates it from f1_circuit_profile/f1_circuit_survey by stating it does not map a modern layout onto an older one.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a clear prerequisite: call f1_circuit_directory first to obtain the stable circuit id. It also implies the boundary against the circuit profile/survey siblings by framing this as results history rather than layout data. It stops short of an explicit 'use X instead when you want Y' statement naming those siblings.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools