Privi Quantum

Privi Car: register a vehicle (passport)

car_register

Create a Vehicle Passport: a post-quantum signed (Ed25519 + ML-DSA-87) identity for one vehicle, with a public verification page. Returns the vehicle_id and an owner_key (shown once) that controls its records and digital keys. One passport per VIN.

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": {
      "make": "<make>",
      "model": "<model>",
      "year": "<year>"
    },
    "name": "car_register"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`vin`	No	Optional VIN; stored only as a fingerprint
`make`	Yes	Manufacturer, e.g. Ford
`year`	Yes	Model year
`model`	Yes	Model, e.g. F-150
`powertrain`	No	gas \| diesel \| hybrid \| plug_in_hybrid \| electric \| hydrogen \| other	gas
`service_interval_km`	No	Service every this many km (default 10000)
`service_interval_months`	No	Service at least every this many months (default 12)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), and the description adds substantive behavior on top: the signing scheme, a public verification page, the uniqueness constraint behind idempotent=false, and the critical warning that owner_key is shown once and grants control. It stops short of stating auth requirements or what happens on a duplicate-VIN attempt, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and the artifact, then the return values, then the uniqueness constraint. No filler or restatement of the title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return contract (vehicle_id plus a one-time owner_key). For a 7-parameter mutation tool it covers creation, return values, and uniqueness, but omits error/duplicate behavior and any permission prerequisites.

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 every parameter including the powertrain enum values and default service intervals is already documented in the schema; the description adds no per-parameter meaning. It also leaves an ambiguity unresolved: 'One passport per VIN' conflicts with vin being optional and defaulting to empty string.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Create a Vehicle Passport') and defines what that artifact is: a post-quantum signed identity for one vehicle with a public verification page. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like car_verify or car_key_issue, which operate on an existing passport rather than minting one.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the entry point that must precede record/key operations, but no sibling is named and no when-not guidance is given. The one concrete constraint provided, 'One passport per VIN,' is a useful precondition but not full routing guidance.

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

All Privi Quantum tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.