DealerMax

Find dealer (directory)

find_dealer

Read-onlyIdempotent

Directory dealer attivi nel network DealerMAX con filtri di ricerca.

Args:
  region: Filtra per nome regione italiana ("Lombardia", "Sicilia"),
    sigla provincia ("MI", "PA"), nome esteso provincia ("Milano",
    "Palermo") o citta ("Cusago", "Buccinasco"). Case-insensitive,
    accent-insensitive. Mappa interna risolve le 110 province italiane
    nelle 20 regioni amministrative ISTAT.
  brand: Filtra dealer che vendono questo brand auto (case-insensitive).
  services: Lista servizi dealer (NON ancora supportato — campo non normalizzato in DB).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`brand`	No	Filter dealers who sell this car brand (case-insensitive).
`region`	No	Filter by Italian region name ('Lombardia', 'Sicilia'), 2-letter province code ('MI', 'PA'), full province name ('Milano', 'Palermo'), or city ('Cusago', 'Buccinasco'). Case-insensitive, accent-insensitive. Internal map resolves the 110 Italian provinces into the 20 ISTAT regions.
`services`	No	List of dealer services (NOT yet supported — field not normalized in DB).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: only active dealers are returned, matching is case- and accent-insensitive, an internal map resolves provinces into ISTAT regions, and the services parameter is explicitly noted as unsupported. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening sentence is short and front-loaded, and the Args formatting is readable. However, the Args block repeats the schema descriptions almost verbatim, adding redundancy without earning its full length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with three optional parameters, full schema descriptions, safety annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, filter semantics, and a known limitation. It is complete except for the sibling-selection guidance already penalized above.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's Args section largely duplicates the schema's property descriptions, including the same examples and caveats. It adds no substantial meaning beyond what the structured schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource ('Directory dealer attivi nel network DealerMAX') and the action/use case ('con filtri di ricerca'). This clearly separates it from vehicle-focused sibling tools, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'returns matching dealers'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like search_vehicles or search_nlt_offers. The intended use is only implied by 'directory dealer... con filtri di ricerca'. An explicit routing note would materially help an agent choose the right tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All DealerMax tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a distinct resource and intent: dealer directory, used-car search and detail, NLT search and detail, catalog specs, and market FAQ. The descriptions explicitly cross-reference the other tools and state when not to use them, so misselection is unlikely.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use lowercase snake_case with a clear verb_noun structure: find_* for dealers, search_* for the two inventory searches, and get_* for details and specs. The pattern is predictable and uniform.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well-scoped for a read-only automotive marketplace server: two search/detail pairs for the two offer types, plus dealer lookup, model specs, and market FAQ. No tool feels redundant.

Completeness5/5

The server covers the full discovery lifecycle for its domain: search and drill-down for both used vehicles and NLT offers, dealer lookup, catalog specs independent of inventory, and explanatory FAQ content. Every search entry point has a corresponding detail tool, so there are no dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?