f1verse MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

A short factual race summary in plain English.

f1_race_brief

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generates a short, factual race recap in plain English from year and round, using template-built prose with data-sourced numbers so it can be quoted verbatim.

Instructions

A short factual race summary in plain English. A publishable prose summary of a race, built from templates only — every number in it comes from the data, so it is safe to quote verbatim. Use when the user wants a readable recap rather than fields to compute with.

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_race_brief"
  }
}

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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description does add real value by disclosing that output is template-built and quote-safe, which is not derivable from annotations. However, it omits operational behavior an agent would want: the schema notes 'Race data 2023+', yet the description never warns that earlier seasons may yield no summary or an error.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the deliverable and followed by the guarantee and the use condition. No filler. The opening line duplicates the title almost verbatim, which is the only wasted clause.

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 need not be described, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is close to complete; the only meaningful omission is the data-coverage limit for pre-2023 seasons and what the tool does in that case.

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%, with year and round both documented in the schema including ranges and the 2023+ data caveat. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is acceptable given the schema already carries the 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 states a specific deliverable: a prose race recap produced from templates, with every figure sourced from data. That clearly separates it from field-returning siblings like f1_race_events or f1_session_results. It stops short of naming its nearest sibling (f1_race_story) as the alternative, so the differentiation is by category rather than by tool.

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?

There is an explicit use condition: 'Use when the user wants a readable recap rather than fields to compute with,' which gives a concrete decision rule against the structured-data siblings. What is missing is any when-not guidance — for example, when a narrative tool like f1_race_story or f1_highlights would be the better pick, since those overlap in intent.

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