Skip to main content
Glama

Get one EV with sources

get_model
Read-onlyIdempotent

Everything SuliHuli holds on one electric vehicle: range per test cycle (WLTP, EPA, CLTC, NEDC), charging, efficiency, battery and the other specs, prices per market and version with their dates, and every figure's source link, date and status (verified or unverified; where sources disagree, each figure is shown with its source, never averaged). The headline figures describe one named version; the answer lists every version we know with what is sourced for each (full, partial or name only). For another version pass version (name words such as 'long range awd', or a key from that list) and get that version's own figures. Photos come with their credit. Use it to answer any question about a specific model, quoting the figure with its cycle, source and status. Returns Markdown with the canonical page URL, plus the same figures as structured fields.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "get_model"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesModel slug as search_models returns it (also the last part of the page URL https://sulihuli.com/m/<slug>), e.g. 'hyundai-ioniq-6'. A version slug such as 'tesla-model-y-long-range-awd' also works.
versionNoOptional: a version key or name words, e.g. 'long range awd'. Without it the answer describes the named version and lists the others.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
nameYes
slugYes
brandNo
scoreNo
termsNoTerms the data is given under.
pricesNo
figuresYes
versionNoPresent when a version was asked for: that version's own figures.
versionsYes
score_tierNo
sources_urlNo
named_versionNoThe version the headline figures describe.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Well beyond the annotations (which only cover read-only/idempotent safety), the description discloses the key behavioral traits: sources that disagree are never averaged but shown individually, headline figures describe one named version while all versions are listed with coverage level (full/partial/name only), and photos carry credit. Return shape is also noted as Markdown plus structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the scope ('Everything SuliHuli holds on one electric vehicle') before the detail list, so the agent gets the gist in the first clause. The middle sentences are dense and somewhat run-on (the parenthetical about disagreements, the version/coverage parenthetical), but each carries substantive information rather than filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and explicit annotations, the description covers purpose, variant behavior, provenance/status semantics, and return form. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly or interpret the answer is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters already carry authoritative descriptions, including the slug format and version examples. The description largely restates this ('long range awd', version keys) and adds only the mild clarification that omitting `version` yields the named version while listing the rest. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Opens with a specific verb-and-resource statement: 'Everything SuliHuli holds on one electric vehicle', then enumerates the resource scope (range per cycle, charging, efficiency, battery, prices per market/version, sources). An agent can immediately distinguish this from search_models (lookup) or compare_models (multi-model), which are named in the schema rather than the description.

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?

Gives an explicit use case: 'Use it to answer any question about a specific model, quoting the figure with its cycle, source and status.' It also explains the version-selection branch (pass `version` for another version's own figures). It stops short of naming alternatives such as compare_models for multi-model questions or stating that slug must come from search_models first — that routing hint lives only in the schema.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.