check_vinsDecode 1-10 US VINs (year, make, model, trim, engine, plant) and list every NHTSA safety recall for each vehicle, with Do Not Drive / Park Outside advisories first, remedy and campaign link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| full | No | ||
| vins | Yes | 17-character VINs |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: US-only VINs, batch size, decoded fields, recall ordering, and remedy/campaign data. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but it is materially informative.
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 packs scope, output fields, and advisory ordering without filler or repetition. Every clause 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?
With no output schema, the description helpfully previews returned fields and recall-advisory ordering. However, it omits what full controls and any error or partial-decoding behavior, so it is only partially complete for a two-parameter lookup tool.
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 50%: vins is described as 17-character VINs, while full has no schema or description. The description repeats the 1-10 VIN limit and adds US scope, but never explains what the full parameter controls, leaving one of two parameters opaque.
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?
Specific verb+resource: decode VINs and list NHTSA recalls, with decoded fields and advisory ordering named. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling vehicle_recalls tool, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative-to-sibling guidance is given. Input limits imply the tool is for 1-10 VINs, but the description does not tell an agent when to choose this over vehicle_recalls.
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.