openf1_get_intervalsRetrieve gap intervals between drivers and the leader for a session, with optional filtering by driver number.
Get interval data showing the gap between drivers and the leader during a session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Keys to keep (comma-separated). | |
| session_key | Yes | Session identifier (required) | |
| driver_number | No | Filter by driver number |
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"
+}v1.3.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the semantic content of the returned data (gap to leader), but does not mention pagination, rate limits, or output format; with annotations present, a 3 is appropriate.
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 no redundant text. It is appropriately sized for the amount of information conveyed, though it could be slightly more structured.
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 read-only data endpoint with rich annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description states the returned data but omits usage routing and any note on output granularity (e.g., per-driver values). Adequate but with clear gaps.
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%, so all three parameters (fields, session_key, driver_number) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (interval data) with a precise definition of the content (gap between drivers and the leader during a session). It is distinguishable from sibling data endpoints like positions or laps, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No when-to-use statement, no alternatives, and no exclusions. The required session_key in the schema implies session-scoped use, but the description never says when to choose this over openf1_get_positions or openf1_get_laps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.