CarHunt

Créer une watchlist (clé API, scope write)

pro_watchlist_create

Create a watchlist: every new matching listing is pushed (~10 min) to a webhook. Crée une alerte : chaque nouvelle annonce matchant les critères est poussée en POST JSON sur webhook_url (véhicules livrés décomptés du quota mensuel). Clé API avec scope write requise.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`make`	No	Marque, ex. VOLKSWAGEN, PEUGEOT, BMW
`name`	Yes
`model`	No	Modèle commercial, ex. GOLF, 308, SERIE 1 — les familles sont expansées (« GOLF » matche GOLF, GOLF SW…)
`energy`	No	Énergies séparées par des virgules : Essence,Diesel,Électrique,Hybride
`region`	No	Région française : ile-de-france (ou idf), paca, bretagne, occitanie, normandie… Exclusif avec departments.
`gearbox`	No	Boîtes séparées par des virgules : Manuelle,Automatique
`finition`	No
`year_max`	No
`year_min`	No	Année-modèle minimum
`price_max`	No	Prix maximum en euros
`price_min`	No	Prix minimum en euros
`departments`	No	Codes départements, ex. ["33", "24", "40"]
`mileage_max`	No	Kilométrage maximum
`seller_type`	No
`webhook_url`	No	URL http(s) POST JSON appelée à chaque nouvelle annonce matchante
`motorization`	No
`min_deal_score`	No

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses the ~10 minute push delay, that delivered vehicles count against the monthly quota, and requires an API key with write scope. Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false, so this additional context is valuable and non-contradictory.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Two sentences, but the first English sentence and the French sentence repeat the same core idea. Some redundancy, though it is still relatively compact.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the core behavior but lacks information about the response format (e.g., whether an ID is returned) and how it relates to delete/list siblings. With 17 parameters and no output schema, more detail on expected return could be helpful.

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?

The description references webhook_url and the matching criteria concept but doesn't elaborate on specific filter parameters. Schema descriptions cover 65% of parameters, and the gaps (e.g., name, finition, motorization) aren't addressed in the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Create a watchlist' and explains the webhook push behavior, clearly identifying the action and resource. It doesn't explicitly reference sibling watchlist tools, but the verb 'create' versus 'delete'/'list' makes the purpose distinct.

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?

It specifies when to use it (to get pushed notifications for new matching listings) and includes a prerequisite ('Clé API avec scope write requise'). It doesn't mention alternative tools like pro_watchlist_list/delete, but the context is clear.

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

All CarHunt 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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are mostly distinct, with slight overlap between pro_search and search_used_cars, but descriptions differentiate based on professional features and deal scores. Pro_deals and pro_search also have different purposes.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use snake_case with a consistent pattern: descriptive nouns for consumer tools (car_market_stats, estimate_car_price, search_used_cars) and pro_ prefix for professional tools (pro_search, pro_deals, pro_watchlist_create). No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count5/5

10 tools is well-scoped for a car market API covering both consumer and professional needs. It is not too few or too many, and each tool serves a clear purpose.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core operations: market stats, price estimation, search, deals, watchlists, and usage. Missing a dedicated tool to retrieve full details of a single listing by ID, but agents can work around using search results.

Resources

Need Help?