Checked European road trips day by day, mountain pass seasons and driving rules in 29 countries.
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool targets a distinct resource: trip search (find_road_trips), single-trip detail by slug (get_road_trip), country driving rules (get_driving_rules), and mountain pass seasons (get_mountain_pass). The find/get pair follows the familiar list-vs-detail split and the descriptions explicitly signal it ('Search ... itineraries' vs 'identified by its slug'). No two tools overlap in purpose.
All four names are snake_case with a verb_noun structure (find_road_trips, get_road_trip, get_driving_rules, get_mountain_pass). The single 'find' variant is semantically motivated (search rather than fetch) and remains predictable.
Four tools is well within a tight, purposeful scope: one search, one detail fetch, and two reference lookups. Every tool earns its place and nothing looks like filler.
The reference-and-itinerary surface is essentially covered for a read-only content server, with search, detail, rules, and pass seasons all reachable. Minor gaps remain: no direct enumeration of supported countries/trip catalogue, and mobile pass status is only linked out to operators rather than exposed as data.
Search Roadcut's European road trip itineraries by country, number of days or keywords (e.g. "fjords", "Alps", "coast", a town). Returns matching trips with days, km and a link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language of the user, for the links (en, de, es, fr, it, cs, da, sv, nb, pl, nl). Default en. | |
| limit | No | Default 8. | |
| query | No | Free-text keywords: a place, region, landscape or theme. | |
| country | No | Country name or ISO code, e.g. "Norway" or "NO". | |
| max_days | No | ||
| min_days | No | ||
| travel_date | No | When the user will drive (YYYY-MM-DD), to check seasonal passes. Default today. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful context about the search scope and returned fields, but does not cover pagination behavior, default limits, or how many results are returned.
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?
Two tight sentences with the search purpose front-loaded, followed by the result format. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.
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 search tool with no output schema and only optional parameters, the description gives enough to understand the searchable dimensions and returned fields. Minor omissions such as pagination/limit behavior are covered by the schema and annotations.
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 coverage is 71%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds helpful keyword examples and mentions country/number-of-days filtering, but it does not clarify the distinction between min_days and max_days or explain lang, limit, and travel_date semantics beyond the schema.
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 a specific verb and resource: searching Roadcut's European road trip itineraries. It also states the available search dimensions and what the results include, making it clearly distinguishable from get_road_trip and the other sibling tools.
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?
It makes clear this is the discovery/search tool for itineraries by country, duration, or keywords. However, it does not explicitly say when to switch to get_road_trip for details or mention any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Speed limits, drink-driving limit and winter tyre, stud and chain rules for a European country, each with the official sources and the date Roadcut last checked them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language of the user, for the links (en, de, es, fr, it, cs, da, sv, nb, pl, nl). Default en. | |
| country | Yes | Country name or ISO code, e.g. "Austria" or "AT". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the description's added value is the data-provenance disclosure: each value carries official sources and the date Roadcut last verified it. The European-only coverage is a useful scope constraint not stated in annotations, but nothing is said about behavior for unsupported countries.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the payload and ends with the provenance detail. No filler, nothing that repeats the schema.
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?
With only two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content, and it does so concretely. The remaining gap is what happens when a non-European or unrecognized country is supplied.
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 coverage is 100%, with country format ('Austria' or 'AT') and the lang enum already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Names the exact resource and enumerates the returned policy facts (speed limits, drink-driving limit, winter tyre/stud/chain rules) plus attribution and freshness metadata. Its domain is unmistakably distinct from find_road_trips, get_road_trip and get_mountain_pass, though it never explicitly says so.
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?
Scope is implied by 'for a European country', which tells the agent the tool is region-bounded, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to siblings. An agent can infer usage from the content list alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
When a European mountain pass (Alps, Norway, Carpathians…) usually opens and closes, whether it opened this year, night closures, and where the road operator publishes live status. Search by pass name or country. Seasons are records of past years, not live status; each result links to the operator's live status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language of the user, for the links (en, de, es, fr, it, cs, da, sv, nb, pl, nl). Default en. | |
| name | No | Pass name or part of it, e.g. "Trollstigen", "Stelvio". | |
| country | No | Country name or ISO code. | |
| travel_date | No | When the user will drive (YYYY-MM-DD), to check seasonal passes. Default today. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the data is historical seasonality, not live status, and each result contains a pointer to the operator's live status. It doesn't cover result cardinality or pagination, keeping it below the top score.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by search guidance and the key data-freshness caveat. No filler.
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 search with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what the tool answers and its key limitation (historical, not live). It could say more about the shape of results (e.g., opening/closing dates and night-closure fields), but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
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 baseline is 3. The description only echoes the name/country search intent and implies travel_date by mentioning 'whether it opened this year'; it adds no format or interpretation detail for lang or travel_date beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific resource (European mountain pass opening/closing seasons) and a specific action (search by pass name or country), including night closures and operator live-status links. It never names or contrasts the sibling tools (find_road_trips, get_driving_rules, get_road_trip), but the domain is different enough that an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.
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?
Gives clear usage context: search by pass name or country, and explicitly warns that seasons are records of past years, not live status, routing the agent to the operator links for current conditions. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead' statement for alternative tools, but the when-not guidance is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Day-by-day overview of one Roadcut road trip: from, to, km and where to sleep each day, highlights, ferries, seasonal mountain passes on the way, a cost estimate, and links to the full plan and the interactive planner. A trip is identified by its slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language of the user, for the links (en, de, es, fr, it, cs, da, sv, nb, pl, nl). Default en. | |
| slug | Yes | Route id, e.g. "bergen-to-geiranger". | |
| travel_date | No | When the user will drive (YYYY-MM-DD), to check seasonal passes. Default today. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While annotations handle the safety aspect (readOnlyHint), the description provides high-value behavioral context by specifying *what* kind of data is returned (e.g., 'seasonal mountain passes,' 'cost estimate'), which helps the agent determine if the tool satisfies a complex user query.
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 highly efficient, structuring a massive amount of information into a single, dense sentence where every phrase defines a capability or constraint of the tool.
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?
Given that there is no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete, covering the depth of the itinerary, the inclusion of external links, and the types of metadata (like cost and travel dates) provided.
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?
Though schema coverage is 100%, the description reinforces the core semantic meaning of the 'slug'—it identifies 'one' specific road trip—and describes the purpose of all optional parameters like 'lang' and 'travel_date' in terms of feature delivery (e.g., checking for seasonal passes).
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 clearly states the purpose is to provide a 'Day-by-day overview' of a specific road trip. It explicitly mentions all the data points included (from, to, km, highlights, cost estimate), making the function highly specific and easy to categorize.
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?
By detailing exactly what information is retrieved (full itinerary, cost, passes, links), it clearly differentiates itself from siblings like 'find_road_trips,' which would likely return a list or abstract summary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
find_road_tripsget_driving_rulesget_mountain_passget_road_tripVanlife & RV data: roadbooks, fuel, tolls, visas, holidays, hazards, weather, currency. openvan.camp
Which motorway vignettes a car trip in Europe needs, with prices and toll caveats.
European motorway vignette catalogue: covered countries, each country's toll rules, today's prices.
Plan trips and track visa days per traveller across 39,601 entry rules
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.