f1_get_seasonsList Formula 1 seasons from 1950 to present with Wikipedia links, plus pagination and field selection.
List all Formula 1 seasons from 1950 to present, including Wikipedia links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return (default 30, max 1000) | |
| fields | No | Keys to keep (comma-separated). | |
| offset | No | Number of results to skip for pagination |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / fieldsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Keys to keep (comma-separated).",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / offset / maximumRemoved value: -9007199254740991v1.3.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / offset / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful return-value fact — that each season includes Wikipedia links — but says nothing about pagination defaults or result ordering, which matters given limit/offset parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with the scope constraint and the notable return detail; nothing extraneous.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, fully annotated, zero-required-parameter list endpoint with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (seasons plus Wikipedia links). The only small gap is the missing note that results are paginated rather than exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: limit, fields and offset all carry their own descriptions and bounds. The description adds nothing about parameters, and 'List all seasons' arguably understates the default-30 limit, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Formula 1 seasons') and bounds it explicitly to '1950 to present', which is far more precise than a bare 'get seasons'. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling season tools (motogp_get_seasons, sportsdb_get_seasons, espn_get_seasons), but the F1 scoping and date range make its remit unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor of prerequisites or context. The phrase 'List all seasons' also gives no hint that results are paginated by default, which is exactly the situation where an agent would need guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.