Skip to main content
Glama
lacausecrypto

Sports Hub MCP Server

by lacausecrypto
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

f1: Get pit stops

f1_get_pit_stops
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve pit stop details for a specific Formula 1 race using season and round, optionally filtering by stop number. Data available from 2012 onward.

Instructions

Get pit stop data for a specific race. Can return all pit stops or a specific stop number. Data available from 2012 onwards.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stopNoSpecific pit stop number (omit for all stops)
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 and repeatability profile is covered structurally. The description adds the temporal availability constraint (2012+), which is useful context, but says nothing about pagination behavior, data source, or what the response contains.

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, with the core action front-loaded and the qualification (specific stop / all stops) immediately after. No padding, though the availability note could be folded more tightly.

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 single-resource read tool with full parameter documentation and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to call it. There is no output schema, but the return shape of pit-stop data is conventionally obvious; a note on source or pagination would close the remaining 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters (stop, limit, round, fields, offset, season) are already documented in the schema, including defaults and bounds. The description's 'all or a specific stop number' phrasing only echoes the stop parameter and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. 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 pit stop data') and scopes it to a specific race, plus clarifies the two query modes (all stops vs. a single stop number). It does not name or distinguish itself from near-neighbors such as openf1_get_pit or f1_get_lap_times, so it falls short of a 5.

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 'data available from 2012 onwards' note is a genuine usage constraint, and the all-vs-single-stop phrasing hints at when to use the stop parameter. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this tool over the other pit-stop-capable sibling (openf1_get_pit), leaving the choice to inference.

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