Read the buyer's trade-in vehicle profile. Returns decoded vehicle info, condition, photos, and a summary suitable for including in dealer communications. Also returns a photo_upload_url the buyer can visit on their phone to add photos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session | Yes | Session hash | |
| agent_id | No | Your agent identifier (claude, grok, gpt, perplexity) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / agent_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Your agent identifier (claude, grok, gpt, perplexity)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly and adds useful behavior details, such as returning a photo_upload_url for the buyer to add photos. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or whether the upload URL expires.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the output summary. Every sentence adds necessary context without repetition or 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?
The description covers the return content (decoded vehicle info, condition, photos, summary, photo_upload_url) despite lacking an output schema. It is mostly complete for invocation, but could still clarify the meaning of 'decoded' and any session prerequisites.
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 documents both parameters. The description does not add extra meaning or usage details for the session or agent_id parameters, which is acceptable but not exceptional.
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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('the buyer's trade-in vehicle profile'), and describes the relevant output content. It is clearly distinguished from a dealer-inventory tool by naming the trade-in session context, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as other session trade-in tools or dealer inventory tools. The description explains what it does but not the selection conditions or prerequisites.
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.