Retrieve race details, full results, and qualifying grids by race ID slug. Use it to look up race outcomes; timing fields require a Developer plan or higher.
Get race details with full results and qualifying grid. Available on every plan; timing fields (gaps, fastest lap, finish time, Q1/Q2/Q3 times) are only returned on Developer and above.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raceId | Yes | Race ID slug, e.g. '2026-bahrain-r1'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it discloses an important constraint: timing fields are omitted unless the plan is Developer or above. It does not cover every behavioral detail such as error behavior or rate limits, but the plan-gated field availability is a meaningful disclosure.
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?
The description is two tightly written sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the plan caveat follows immediately.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does enough by naming the returned content and the plan-dependent omission of timing fields. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying its relationship to the dedicated race sub-resource tools.
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%, and the single raceId parameter is documented with an example in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?
The description gives a specific verb and resource: get race details with full results and qualifying grid. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as get_race_qualifying or get_race_summary.
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?
The plan availability note gives useful context for when the tool will return complete timing data, but it does not state when to use this tool instead of sibling race tools. Usage is implied by the raceId-based detail lookup rather than explicitly routed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.