Fetch a paginated list of Formula 1 circuits with locations and coordinates, optionally filtered by country.
List all F1 circuits with location and coordinates. Available on every plan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| country | No |
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 must carry the behavioral burden: it does add a real access constraint ('available on every plan'), which an agent would otherwise have to discover by failing. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset parameters, nor about whether results are sorted or bounded, leaving key behavioral traits undisclosed.
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, both front-loaded with the resource and the return fields; nothing wasted and nothing buried.
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 three-parameter list tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description should explain pagination defaults and how country filtering narrows results. As written, an agent can call it but cannot call it well.
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% and none of the three parameters (limit, offset, country) are mentioned or explained. 'List all' even implies no filtering, which is mildly at odds with the country filter the schema exposes.
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 and resource ('List all F1 circuits') plus the fields returned (location, coordinates), so the agent knows exactly what it fetches. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_circuit, which is the only missing piece for a 5.
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 guidance on when to choose this over get_circuit (single circuit) or any other sibling, and no prerequisites or exclusions. 'Available on every plan' describes entitlement, not usage selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.