Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
f1verse MCP Server

f1verse MCP Server

by jinsim
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Championships ranked by how close they finished.

f1_closest_titles
Read-onlyIdempotent

Rank Formula 1 championships by tight title margins, comparing point gaps and gaps relative to each season's win value for fair cross-era comparison.

Instructions

Championships ranked by how close they finished. The smallest title margins in history, measured both in points and relative to what a win was worth that season — the only way seasons decades apart compare honestly, since two points in 1958 is most of a win and two points today is not.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "f1_closest_titles"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topNoHow many seasons to return.

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

A3.7/5.0
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 earns credit for disclosing the non-obvious computation behind the ranking — margins measured both in points and normalized against what a win was worth that season — which tells the agent the results are era-adjusted rather than raw point gaps.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the second explains the normalisation rationale. The em-dash clause is long-winded but carries real information; nothing is wasted, though it could be trimmed.

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?

With one optional integer parameter and an output schema present, the description covers what the tool returns and how the ranking is computed. Minor gaps: no statement of the default value for 'top', and the wording mixes 'championships' with the schema's 'seasons', a small terminology inconsistency.

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 single 'top' parameter is already documented as 'How many seasons to return.' The description adds no default value, cap, or ordering detail for that parameter, so it neither compensates nor detracts; 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 states a specific verb and resource: ranking championships/seasons by the size of the title margin, plus the smallest margins in history. An agent can tell this is a historical ranking tool, but it never names the obvious sibling (f1_title_race) or otherwise distinguishes itself explicitly from it.

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 only implied: the mention of comparing seasons 'decades apart' hints at the cross-era use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative such as f1_title_race or f1_standings.

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