Skip to main content
Glama

RecallChecker — Vehicle Safety Recalls

Server Details

Check U.S. NHTSA vehicle safety recall campaigns by make, model, and year. Live official data.

Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL
Repository
ollo12-prog/recallchecker
GitHub Stars
0

Glama MCP Gateway

Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

Full call logging

Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.

Tool access control

Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.

Managed credentials

Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.

Usage analytics

See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 4.6/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility for confusion or overlap between tools. Disambiguation is not a concern in this case.

Naming Consistency5/5

There is only one tool, so there is no inconsistency in naming patterns. The name 'check_vehicle_recalls' follows a clear verb_noun structure.

Tool Count3/5

A single tool is slightly thin for a server dedicated to vehicle safety recalls, as users may expect additional functionality like VIN-specific lookups or recall detail retrieval. However, the tool is well-scoped to a specific common use case.

Completeness2/5

The tool only provides recall checks by make, model, and year, missing the crucial VIN-specific lookup that is often required for individual vehicle status. This is a significant gap for users wanting to check their own vehicle's recall status.

Available Tools

1 tool
check_vehicle_recallsCheck vehicle safety recalls (NHTSA)A
Read-only
Inspect

Check U.S. NHTSA safety recall campaigns for a vehicle by make, model, and model year. Returns official NHTSA recall campaigns (component, hazard, remedy, campaign number, official notice link) plus the date the data was fetched. Results are model-year campaign matches, NOT VIN-specific repair status — an empty result means no open recalls were found in NHTSA as of the returned date, which is not a guarantee the vehicle is safe.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
makeYesVehicle make, e.g. Honda, Ford, Toyota
yearYesFour-digit model year, e.g. 2021
modelYesVehicle model, e.g. Civic, F-150, Camry
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds critical behavioral context: it returns official recall info with a date, and clarifies that an empty result does not imply vehicle safety. No contradictions 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences with no extraneous words. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence covers critical limitations.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (three required params, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It describes return fields (component, hazard, remedy, campaign number, link, date) and limitations. Lacking only a structured output example.

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% with clear descriptions for each parameter (make, model, year). The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description clearly states the tool checks U.S. NHTSA safety recall campaigns for a vehicle by make, model, and model year. It specifies the resource (NHTSA) and scope, making it distinct from any potential alternatives.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance: results are model-year campaign matches, not VIN-specific repair status, and an empty result does not guarantee safety. This clarifies when to use this tool and its limitations.

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

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.