openf1_get_team_radioRetrieve team radio message metadata for a Formula 1 session, including audio recording URLs of driver-engineer communications.
Get team radio message metadata for a session. Returns URLs to audio recordings of driver-engineer communications.
| 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 already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing what is returned — metadata and audio recording URLs rather than transcripts or raw audio — which is valuable given there is no output schema.
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?
Two tight sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded; every clause carries information and none is redundant.
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 read-only, three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool fetches and the shape of the return (audio URLs). It could note the optional driver_number filtering, but the schema handles that adequately.
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 both session_key and driver_number filters are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes session scoping and adds no syntax or semantics beyond what is structured, so 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 (team radio message metadata) with an explicit scope (for a session), and adds that it returns URLs to audio recordings. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like openf1_get_car_data or openf1_get_laps without requiring schema inspection.
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?
Usage is implied by the session-scoped phrasing, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance or exclusions relative to other openf1 tools. Adequate but leaves routing largely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.