Skip to main content
Glama

cars-data.com — Car Specs API

get_specs

Full localized specs for one vehicle variant, in any of 19 languages — 180 spec types covering engine & fuel, performance, EV/hybrid, safety (30 specs), comfort & interior (47), exterior, chassis, dimensions & weights, consumption (WLTP/NEDC). Each spec carries a confidence score; the response carries last_synced_at — surface both so you don't overstate certainty.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
localeNo
variant_idYesfrom search_cars or filter_cars

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: each spec has a confidence score and the response includes last_synced_at. It does not cover side effects, idempotency, or other typical behavioral traits, but the disclosed information is relevant.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Concise and well-structured: front-loaded with core purpose, followed by categorized examples. The listing of spec types is informative without being overly verbose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no output schema, the description mentions confidence scores and last_synced_at but does not detail the structure of spec objects or how categories map to properties. For 180 spec types, more structure would improve completeness.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description adds little beyond the input schema: it mentions '19 languages' but the schema already has an enum for locale. For variant_id, the description does not repeat the schema's note about coming from search_cars/filter_cars. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate more.

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 clearly states 'Full localized specs for one vehicle variant' and enumerates spec categories (engine, safety, etc.), making the tool's purpose specific and informative. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like compare_variants or search_cars.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to surface confidence scores and last_synced_at, which helps agents use the data appropriately. However, no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or prerequisites (e.g., variant_id must come from search_cars or filter_cars, which is in schema but not description).

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: search, filter, get specs, get images, compare, and list generations. No overlap between their functionalities.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., search_cars, get_specs, list_generations), with no mixed conventions.

Tool Count5/5

With 6 tools covering all core functionalities of a car specs API (search, filter, specs, images, comparison, generations), the count is well-scoped and not excessive.

Completeness4/5

The tools cover the main use cases for a read-only car specs API. The only minor gap is the lack of a dedicated tool to list all brands or models, but the search tool can handle that need.