get_season_racesRetrieve all races for a specified season year, including circuit, date, and data quality tier, so you can review the full schedule.
List all races in a season with circuit, date, and data quality tier. Available on every plan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds modest value by disclosing the returned fields and plan availability, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or behavior on an invalid/empty season.
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 short sentences with zero waste; the core purpose and return fields are front-loaded before the plan-availability note.
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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and plan availability. Only minor gaps remain around `year` format and result ordering/size, which is acceptable at this complexity.
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 0% for the single required `year` parameter, and the description only implies season-year semantics via "in a season." It does not clarify the accepted format (e.g., 2024 vs. a season ID) or the wide/odd numeric bounds present in the schema, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 names a specific verb and resource ("List all races in a season") and even previews the returned fields (circuit, date, data quality tier). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_race (single race) or list_events, though it does not name those alternatives directly.
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?
"Available on every plan" is an access/gating hint rather than usage guidance. The agent can infer that supplying a season year yields that season's race list, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_race, list_events, or list_seasons, and no exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.