Retrieve Formula 1 drivers with filters for active status, nationality, and name search, plus limit and offset for pagination.
List F1 drivers. Available on every plan; page size is capped at 25 on Free and 100 on paid plans.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| active | No | true = currently racing, false = retired. | |
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | Partial surname or forename match. | |
| nationality | No | Filter by nationality, e.g. 'British'. |
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 full burden, and it does add genuinely useful behavior: plan-based page-size caps of 25 (Free) vs 100 (paid). It omits ordering of results, what happens when limit exceeds the Free cap (error vs clamp), and total-count/pagination behavior, so meaningful gaps remain for an unannotated read tool.
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 sentences, zero waste, purpose front-loaded before the operational constraint. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise lack.
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 5-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers identity and tier limits but leaves result ordering, pagination totals, and the limit-over-cap behavior undefined. Adequate to call the tool correctly in the common case, but not complete.
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?
The page-size cap note adds real meaning to `limit` beyond the schema's bare maximum: 100, since the effective ceiling depends on plan. Schema coverage is 60%, and offset, the one undocumented parameter, is still left unexplained (the description's pagination note doesn't clarify how offset interacts with the cap).
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 F1 drivers'), which cleanly separates it from get_driver/get_driver_results. It does not explicitly name those siblings or state what distinguishes the list view from the single-driver view, so it stops short of 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?
The description implies the browse/enumerate use case but never says when to prefer this over get_driver or get_driver_results. The tier/page-size sentence is operational context rather than a when-to-use rule, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.