Get one recall notice kept by CarsMultiverse: title, summary, register, dates, an excerpt of the notice and a citation. Pass a recall number or a CarsMultiverse URL or path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reference | Yes | Recall number (e.g. 25V455) or URL/path (e.g. /recall/25v455/). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by specifying the response contents (title, summary, register, dates, excerpt, citation) and implies a read-only operation via 'Get'. However, it does not mention error behavior, authentication needs, or what happens when the reference is invalid, which leaves some behavioral gaps.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and return fields; the second states the input format. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
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 single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, input format, and return contents. It is mostly complete, though it could add a note about when to use this instead of searching or listing, and what happens on invalid references.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the 'reference' parameter with examples. The description's 'Pass a recall number or a CarsMultiverse URL or path' largely restates the schema rather than adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'one recall notice kept by CarsMultiverse', and enumerates the returned fields (title, summary, register, dates, excerpt, citation). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_registers and search_recalls, which handle listing and searching rather than direct retrieval.
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 explains how to call the tool ('Pass a recall number or a CarsMultiverse URL or path') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools search_recalls or list_registers. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative routing, so the agent must infer usage context from the tool name and input parameter.
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.
