Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Sports Hub MCP Server

Sports Hub MCP Server

by lacausecrypto
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

f1: Get lap times

f1_get_lap_times
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch Formula 1 lap times for a specific race by season and round, or request one lap number. Use it to retrieve all laps from 1996 onward.

Instructions

Get lap times for a specific race. Can return all laps or a specific lap number. Data available from 1996 onwards.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lapNoSpecific lap number (omit for all laps)
limitNoMaximum number of results to return (default 30, max 1000)
roundYesRound number within the season
fieldsNoKeys to keep (comma-separated).
offsetNoNumber of results to skip for pagination
seasonYesSeason year (e.g. "2024")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.4.1
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • addedInput schema / properties / fields
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Keys to keep (comma-separated).",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / offset / maximum
      Removed value: -9007199254740991
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.3.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
  3. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond the structured data – historical coverage begins in 1996 – but says nothing about pagination behavior, result volume, or ordering, which the schema only hints at via limit/offset.

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 core action and zero filler. The middle sentence partially duplicates the schema's own parameter documentation, which is the only mild redundancy.

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?

For a six-parameter read tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs: what it returns, the optional single-lap mode, and the historical boundary. The absence of any note on pagination or result ordering is a minor gap given limit/offset exist in the schema.

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%, so every parameter including lap, season, round, limit, offset and fields is already documented in the schema. The description's only added meaning is that omitting the lap parameter yields all laps, which is essentially a restatement of the schema's 'omit for all laps' note, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get lap times for a specific race') and clarifies scope with the all-laps vs. single-lap distinction and the 1996 data start. It does not differentiate itself from the closely related sibling openf1_get_laps, which also returns lap data, so the agent gets no routing help between the two.

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 description implies usage ('for a specific race', 'all laps or a specific lap number') and flags a hard constraint (data from 1996 onwards), which helps an agent decide if the tool is applicable. It names no alternative and gives no when-not-to-use guidance, so the sibling overlap with openf1_get_laps is left unresolved.

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