APIVerve

DTC Lookup

DTCLookup

Read-only

DTC Lookup: DTC Lookup explains OBD-II diagnostic trouble codes such as P0301 or U0100. It returns the code's system and standard title, which warning light it turns on, and on paid plans the full description, likely causes ranked by likelihood, symptoms, repair difficulty, estimated cost and labor hours, and related codes. Carmaker-specific codes are covered for 32 makes. (Cost: 1 credit)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "DTCLookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes	The OBD-II trouble code: P, B, C or U followed by four characters, for example P0301, U0100 or P2BAC
`lang`	No	Language of the title, description, causes and symptoms of generic codes	en
`make`	No	The vehicle make, for carmaker-specific codes, for example Ford, Chevrolet or Volkswagen

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No
`error`	No	Error message, null on success
`status`	No	"ok" on success

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's added value is the tier gating ('on paid plans the full description, likely causes...') and the explicit 'Cost: 1 credit' signal, which is real behavior an agent must know before calling. It stops short of describing not-found or invalid-code behavior, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and examples, then the returned fields, then eligibility and price. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding or restatement of the tool name alone.

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?

With an output schema present the description is not obliged to enumerate return fields, yet it does so briefly and helpfully. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and the credit cost disclosed, the definition is nearly complete; only failure modes for unknown or malformed codes are unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents code, lang and make with examples, making a 3 the baseline. The description adds a little meaning by tying 'make' to carmaker-specific codes across 32 makes, but never mentions the language parameter or the acceptable code format beyond its own examples.

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 states a concrete verb and resource ('explains OBD-II diagnostic trouble codes') and gives literal examples (P0301, U0100), so the agent knows exactly what domain this covers. It does not contrast itself with related siblings like VINDecoder or USCarModels, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: the reader infers this is the tool for decoding a trouble code, and the mention of 'carmaker-specific codes ... for 32 makes' hints that the make parameter should be supplied for those cases. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative, leaving routing to inference.

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

All APIVerve tools Inspect

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.