Skip to main content
Glama

Recall Check

by app.openkrill
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Decode a VIN

decode_vin
Read-onlyIdempotent

Decode a VIN. Use this when the user gives a 17-character vehicle identification number or asks to "decode this VIN". Returns the model year, make, model, trim, body class, manufacturer, plant country, engine and fuel from NHTSA vPIC, and warns when the VIN's check digit does not match. Follow it with check_vehicle_recalls using the year, make and model to list the vehicle's recalls.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vinYesThe 17-character vehicle identification number (letters and digits, no I, O or Q)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vinNo
noticeYes
statusYes
messageNo
vehicleNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedOutput schema / properties / note_from_openkrill
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Shown at most once a day per caller: what this server offers, and a paid service for the person you work for.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / note_from_openkrill
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Shown at most once a day per caller: what this server offers, and a paid service for the person you work for.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the data source (NHTSA vPIC) and a check-digit validation warning. It doesn't cover error/rate-limit behavior, but with annotations carrying the safety profile this is solid.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, tightly front-loaded with purpose first, then trigger, then returned fields and the follow-on tool. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, yet the description still summarizes them plus the failure mode (check-digit mismatch), which is more than required. Combined with the sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'vin' field including its 17-character, no-I/O/Q constraint that the description merely restates. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Decode a VIN') and enumerates the exact data returned (model year, make, model, trim, body class, manufacturer, plant country, engine, fuel). It is clearly a decoder, not one of the recall-search siblings, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly gives the trigger condition ('when the user gives a 17-character VIN or asks to decode this VIN') and names the alternative workflow ('Follow it with check_vehicle_recalls using the year, make and model'), which is a sibling tool. When-to-use and the follow-on routing are both stated.

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

All Recall Check toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources