f1verse MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

How a championship unfolded, round by round.

f1_season_shape

Read-onlyIdempotent

Trace how an F1 championship unfolded round by round: each contender's running points total, who led after every round, and where the lead changed hands.

Instructions

How a championship unfolded, round by round. Each contender's running points total, who led after every round, and where the lead changed hands. Two seasons can end on the same margin and look nothing alike; this is what tells a procession from a fight.

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>"
    },
    "name": "f1_season_shape"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`year`	Yes	Season year, e.g. 2026. Race data 2023+.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.15.0Nov 9, 2026

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

B3.2/5.0

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, and an output schema exists, so the behavioral bar is low. The description adds the shape of the payload conceptually (per-round running totals and lead changes) but says nothing about data coverage limits or ordering; the 'Race data 2023+' caveat lives only in the schema.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the concrete fields returned. The final metaphor is slightly decorative but short and it does communicate differentiation, so little is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Against a single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description is serviceable but thin on routing. In a 26-tool family with several standings- and title-related siblings, omitting any disambiguation leaves a real gap.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the year field, its minimum of 1950, and the 2023+ data note. The description contributes no additional meaning about the year parameter, 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 and output shape: each contender's running points total, who led after every round, and where the lead changed hands. That is enough to separate it from a snapshot like f1_standings, though it never uses a direct verb and leans on the atmospheric first sentence ('How a championship unfolded') to carry the purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named despite obvious overlaps with f1_standings, f1_title_race, f1_closest_titles and f1_turning_points. The closing line about telling 'a procession from a fight' implies a comparison use case, but the agent must infer it.

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