f1verse MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

A circuit's layout, pit-loss economics and historical record.

f1_circuit_profile

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a Formula 1 circuit profile with layout geometry, corner and sector boundaries, pit-loss estimates under green/SC/VSC, reference lap, and historical race outcomes for previews.

Instructions

A circuit's layout, pit-loss economics and historical record. Geometry, corner-by-corner lap position and local heading change, mini-sector and marshal-sector boundaries, pit loss under green/SC/VSC, a reference lap, and historical outcomes in one evidence-labelled profile. Coordinate length is explicitly not presented as surveyed metres; absent elevation, width and DRS geometry are named rather than guessed. Use this for a race-preview track explainer.

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_circuit_profile"
  }
}

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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: outputs are 'evidence-labelled', coordinate length is explicitly not surveyed metres, and absent elevation/width/DRS geometry is 'named rather than guessed'. That tells the agent how to interpret data quality, which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the caveats about what is not claimed are placed after the content list where they belong. The middle sentence is a long comma-separated inventory that is dense but each item is informative; only minor tightening is possible.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope, data-quality caveats and a usage context. The one real gap is sibling differentiation among the four circuit-related tools, which matters given the crowded namespace.

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% and both parameters (year, round) are documented in the schema, including the 2023+ data caveat. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific resource (a circuit profile) and enumerates its contents: geometry, corner-by-corner position, mini/marshal sectors, pit loss under green/SC/VSC, reference lap, historical outcomes. That is far more than a restatement of the title. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the three sibling circuit tools (f1_circuit_survey, f1_circuit_directory, f1_circuit_history), which an agent would need to disambiguate.

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?

The closing sentence 'Use this for a race-preview track explainer' gives one concrete usage context, which is more than nothing. But it offers no when-not guidance and never names the obvious alternatives (circuit_survey, circuit_history, circuit_directory), so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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