get_tyre_strategyRetrieve tyre strategies for drivers in an OpenF1 session, including compound sequence, stint lengths and pit stops. Filter by driver number or omit it to cover all drivers.
Tyre strategy for each driver in a session: compound sequence, stint lengths and pit stops.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_key | Yes | Session identifier or "latest". | |
| driver_number | No | Optional driver number(s). Omit for all drivers. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are per-driver and cover stints plus pit stops, which hints the tool combines data also exposed by get_stints and get_pit, but it says nothing about coverage gaps (e.g. sessions without tyre data) or ordering.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource comes first and the enumerated contents follow, so an agent can skim and act.
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 two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, the description adequately conveys what comes back (compound sequence, stint lengths, pit stops). Minor gaps remain around whether the tool aggregates get_stints/get_pit output and whether data is returned for sessions with no pit activity.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters, including the "latest" session alias and the driver_number array, are documented in the schema. The description's "for each driver in a session" only restates the schema's required/optional split, adding no new semantics.
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?
Names the resource (tyre strategy), the scope (each driver in a session), and the concrete contents (compound sequence, stint lengths, pit stops), which lets an agent picture the payload. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_stints or get_pit, which appear to return overlapping data.
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?
There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus get_stints, get_pit, or get_laps, and no prerequisites such as a completed or live session. The agent must infer the choice purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.