List every documented MarketCheck REST endpoint: method, path, one-line title, region, and docs URL (~73 endpoints across US/UK cars, dealers, VIN decode, history, valuations).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | Optional case-insensitive substring match on path or title, e.g. 'dealer'. | |
| region | No | Optional filter; omit for all. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns every documented endpoint across regions, includes docs URLs, and approximates scale with '~73 endpoints'. There is no contradiction 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then packs in output fields, regions, and scale without any filler. Every element 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 read-only listing tool with no required parameters and a fully documented schema, this description is complete. It states the output fields, scope, and approximate number of results, so an agent can select and invoke the tool correctly without missing information.
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%, with both 'filter' and 'region' already explained in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every documented MarketCheck REST endpoint'), then lists the exact fields returned. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_endpoint or search_docs, which target individual or searched endpoints rather than the full catalog.
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 makes clear this is the enumeration/catalog tool for all documented endpoints, so an agent knows to use it for overviews or discovery. It does not explicitly state when to prefer get_endpoint or search_docs, but the 'every documented' framing conveys the intended scope well enough to avoid obvious misuse.
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.