f1verse MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Is this session's data complete, current and safe to publish?

f1_data_quality

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a session's data is complete, current and safe to publish before stating results as final. Returns field completeness, data age, provisional flags and a publishable verdict.

Instructions

Is this session's data complete, current and safe to publish? Completeness per field, how old the fetched copy is, whether the classification is still provisional (stewards rewrite results hours after the flag), corrections observed so far, agreement between independent sources, and a single 'publishable' verdict. Call this before stating a result as final, especially within a few hours of a session ending.

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_data_quality"
  }
}

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.
`session`	No	Session name as the calendar spells it: Race, Qualifying, Sprint, Sprint Qualifying, Practice 1-3. Defaults to Race.	Race

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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is largely covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: classification can be provisional because 'stewards rewrite results hours after the flag', and corrections may still be arriving. It does not say what the tool does when data is not publishable or whether it blocks or merely reports, leaving a gap.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core question, then a comma-separated inventory of what the report covers, then the call-to-action. Every listed item is a distinct signal an agent would act on. The inventory sentence is long but not padded.

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-shape detail is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the decision context (provisional classifications, delayed steward corrections) that an agent needs to interpret a 'publishable' verdict. Only the follow-up behavior on a negative verdict is unaddressed.

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%, so year, round and session are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds only an indirect hint that session timing matters ('within a few hours of a session ending') and nothing about session-name conventions or year boundaries. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 enumerates exactly what is assessed: per-field completeness, age of the fetched copy, whether the classification is still provisional, corrections observed, cross-source agreement, and a single 'publishable' verdict. That distinguishes it clearly from data-returning siblings like f1_session_results or f1_standings. It lacks a single explicit verb (it is framed as a question), but the content is specific enough that an agent knows what it produces.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Call this before stating a result as final, especially within a few hours of a session ending.' That is clear timing guidance tied to a real risk window. It does not name alternatives or state when-not to call (e.g., versus f1_source_status), which keeps it short of a 5.

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