TuneWorks

Diagnose handling issue

diagnose_handling_issue

Read-only

Provides understeer/oversteer setup guidance without authentication or access to TuneWorks account data.

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": {
      "balance": "<balance>",
      "phase": "<phase>"
    },
    "name": "diagnose_handling_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notes`	No	Optional driver feedback or setup context.
`phase`	Yes
`speed`	No	Optional speed range or driver note.
`balance`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No
`tool`	Yes	TuneWorks MCP tool name that produced this result.
`status`	Yes	Stable result status such as ok, created, updated, sent, auth_required, or confirmation_required.
`outcome`	No	Optional domain outcome for an otherwise successful read.
`nextStep`	No
`diagnosis`	No	Balance, phase, summary, and recommended setup actions.
`acquisitionScope`	No
`authenticationRequired`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 24, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / outcome

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional domain outcome for an otherwise successful read.",
+  "enum": [
+    "no_vehicles",
+    "vehicle_not_found",
+    "vehicle_selection_required",
+    "no_data"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / status / description

Previous value: -"Result status such as ok, created, updated, sent, auth_required, or confirmation_required."New value: +"Stable result status such as ok, created, updated, sent, auth_required, or confirmation_required."

First observedOct 18, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds genuine context beyond the annotations: no authentication is required and no TuneWorks account data is touched, which tells an agent it can call this without a connected account. That is a useful behavioral disclosure the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint pair does not convey. It stops short of describing what kind of guidance is returned, though the output schema covers that.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single compact sentence with no wasted wording. It is efficient but leans toward under-specification rather than tightness, since the brevity costs usage and parameter clarity.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What is still missing is the connection between the required inputs and the diagnosis (e.g., that balance plus corner phase selects the guidance) and any indication of when to prefer a calculation sibling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 50% and the description says nothing about the four inputs. The two undocumented parameters (balance and phase) are enums that are largely self-explanatory, but the required nature of balance/phase and the purpose of speed/notes is left entirely to the schema with no compensating explanation.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names the domain (understeer/oversteer setup guidance) which, combined with the tool name, tells an agent roughly what it does. However it never states how the guidance is produced or frames the output as recommendations, and it gives no explicit contrast with adjacent siblings like calculate_corner_balance or recommend_autocross_damper_adjustment.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools such as calculate_corner_balance. The only routing signal is the implicit 'handling issue' framing in the name.

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

All TuneWorks 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.

Resources

Need Help?