lookup_driverLook up an iRacing driver profile by customer ID — iRating, license class, safety rating, career stats (starts, wins, top5s, avg finish, avg incidents). Requires active iRacing subscription. Costs $0.01 USDC per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cust_id | Yes | iRacing customer ID (numeric) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by noting the subscription requirement and per-call cost, which are beyond annotation scope. However, it omits details like error cases or rate limits, which would further enhance transparency.
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 three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and outputs, the second gives a requirement, the third states cost. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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 lookup tool with one fully documented parameter and clear annotations, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, inputs, outputs, requirements, and cost. No missing information is evident.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the cust_id parameter. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond confirming the tool uses a customer ID. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool looks up an iRacing driver profile by customer ID and lists returned data (iRating, license class, etc.). It distinguishes effectively from siblings like get_race_results and search_web, which serve different purposes.
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 specifies requirements (active iRacing subscription, $0.01 USDC per call), providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives, but the sibling tools are sufficiently distinct that no further exclusion is necessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: status checks, race search, race results, driver lookup, and web search. The two race-related tools are complementary (search returns subsession IDs used by get_race_results), not overlapping.
All tool names follow the verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_, search_, lookup_). The verbs are appropriate and consistent, with no mixing of conventions or camelCase.
With only 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its stated purpose as an x402 facilitator offering iRacing data and web search. Each tool earns its place and there is no bloat.
The race search-to-results flow is complete, and driver lookup and web search work standalone. However, lookup_driver requires a customer ID with no way to discover IDs from within the tool set (no driver search by name), leaving a minor gap.