NHTSA Vehicle Safety

get_recalls

Get vehicle safety recalls from NHTSA.

Search for recalls by make, model, and/or year. Returns recall campaigns
including the defect description, remedy, and affected vehicles.
At least one filter (make, model, or year) should be provided.

Args:
    make: Vehicle manufacturer name (e.g. 'Toyota', 'Ford', 'Honda').
    model: Vehicle model name (e.g. 'Camry', 'F-150', 'Civic').
    year: Model year (e.g. 2023).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`make`	No
`year`	No
`model`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It notes the return includes recall campaigns, defect description, remedy, and affected vehicles, and implies a read-only operation via 'Get'. It lacks explicit mention of safety, rate limits, or error handling, but these are less critical for a simple data retrieval tool.

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 efficiently structured: a purpose statement, search/return details, a requirement note, and an Args list. Every section serves a purpose and no content is wasted, though the Args list adds length.

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?

The tool is adequately described for its simplicity, with return content and input requirement specified. The presence of an output schema covers return structure. However, it does not explain error behavior when no filter is provided, nor does it reference sibling tools for comparison, leaving minor gaps.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema has zero parameter descriptions, so the description's Args section fully compensates by defining make, model, and year with examples. This provides clear semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 retrieves vehicle safety recalls from NHTSA, with search by make/model/year. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_complaints and get_crash_statistics, which address different NHTSA datasets.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains the search capability and specifies that at least one filter should be provided, giving clear context for invocation. However, it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over sibling tools or when not to use it.

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

All NHTSA Vehicle Safety tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. complaint_trends_by_component analyzes component-level trends, decode_vin decodes VINs, get_complaints retrieves complaint details, get_crash_statistics provides fatal crash data, get_recalls fetches recall information, and local_vehicle_safety_profile combines national trends with local crash data. The boundaries between tools are well-defined, preventing misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern with minor deviations. Most tools use get_ or decode_ prefixes (get_complaints, get_recalls, decode_vin), but complaint_trends_by_component and local_vehicle_safety_profile deviate slightly by using descriptive phrases instead of simple verbs. However, all names are snake_case and clearly describe their functions, maintaining readability.

Tool Count5/5

With 6 tools, the count is well-scoped for the NHTSA vehicle safety domain. Each tool earns its place by covering distinct aspects: VIN decoding, complaint retrieval, recall searches, crash statistics, trend analysis, and safety profiling. This provides comprehensive coverage without being overwhelming or too sparse.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface provides complete coverage for the NHTSA vehicle safety domain. It includes data retrieval (complaints, recalls, crash stats), analysis (trends, safety profiles), and utility functions (VIN decoding). There are no obvious gaps—agents can perform typical workflows like assessing vehicle safety, investigating defects, or analyzing crash data without dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?