Estimate what a car trip really costs: fuel, servicing, tyres, tolls and ownership. Best in Europe.
Scored across 1 tool
The server exposes a single tool with one clearly defined purpose: estimating total trip cost between two places. There is no other tool to confuse it with, so selection is unambiguous.
The lone name calculate_trip_cost uses a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern that directly describes the action and resource. No convention mixing is possible with one tool.
One tool is thin for a cost-estimation domain; there is no way to look up vehicles, compare transport modes, or retrieve saved trips. It is defensible for a narrowly scoped calculator, but the surface feels minimal rather than well-rounded.
The single tool covers the core calculation with fuel, maintenance, tyres, tolls, and optional ownership costs, but the description itself admits gaps (vignettes may be omitted, Europe-only coverage, no multi-leg or alternative-mode comparison). Agents can get a point estimate but cannot chain into related operations.
Estimate the true cost of driving from one place to another: fuel or electricity, maintenance, tyres, tolls and optionally ownership costs (depreciation, insurance, registration). Best coverage in Europe. Returns EUR figures with a breakdown. Estimates use vehicle-class averages; motorway vignettes (e.g. Austria, Switzerland) may not be included.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Destination, e.g. "Salzburg, Austria". | |
| from | Yes | Start location, city or address. Include the country, e.g. "Munich, Germany". | |
| premium | No | Premium brand: servicing, tyres and ownership cost more. | |
| fuel_type | No | Only for classes other than hybrid and electric. Default petrol. | |
| fuel_price | No | Optional override: EUR per litre (or per kWh for electric). | |
| round_trip | No | Double the distance, tolls and costs. | |
| vehicle_class | No | Type of vehicle. | compact_car |
| include_ownership_costs | No | Add depreciation, insurance and registration/finance. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: estimates are based on vehicle-class averages rather than precise figures, results are in EUR with a breakdown, and motorway vignettes for countries like Austria and Switzerland may be excluded. It stops short of discussing accuracy ranges or rate limits, but the disclosed caveats are the ones most likely to cause a wrong interpretation of results.
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?
Front-loaded with the core purpose, then coverage caveats, then return format — a sensible ordering with little waste. The final caveat-heavy sentences are dense but each carries decision-relevant information; "Best coverage in Europe" is the weakest line but still sets expectations.
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 an 8-parameter estimation tool with no output schema, the description supplies what's missing: the shape of the return value (EUR figures with a breakdown) and the precision limits of the estimate. Nothing critical is absent, though a note on how distance/routing is derived would round it out.
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 schema already explains every parameter including enum meanings and defaults. The description only loosely gestures at parameters ("fuel or electricity" maps to fuel_type, "optionally ownership costs" maps to include_ownership_costs) without adding format or interaction detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Estimate the true cost of driving from one place to another") and enumerates the cost components covered: fuel/electricity, maintenance, tyres, tolls, and optional ownership costs. There are no siblings to differentiate from, but an agent can immediately tell what the tool produces.
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?
Usage is implied through the enumerated components and the note that ownership costs are optional, plus a geographic applicability hint ("Best coverage in Europe"). However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no statement of what inputs are unsuitable, and no alternatives named.
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.
calculate_trip_costFuel cost, fuel economy, journey time, tyre pressure, power, torque, speed and distance calculators.
Real-time fuel prices, alerts, and cheapest gas stations across 38+ countries.
European maps, geocoding and routing: places, routes, travel times, reachable areas and maps.
Which motorway vignettes a car trip in Europe needs, with prices and toll caveats.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.