Skip to main content
Glama

nhtsa-vehicle-safety-mcp-server

by io.github.cyanheads

Nhtsa Decode Vin

nhtsa_decode_vin
Read-only

Decode a Vehicle Identification Number to extract make, model, year, body type, engine, safety equipment, and manufacturing details. Pass a single 17-character VIN string, or an array of up to 50 VINs for batch decode. Partial VINs accepted — use * for unknown positions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vinYesA single 17-character VIN (e.g., "1HGCM82633A004352") or an array of up to 50 VINs for batch decode. Partial VINs accepted — use * for unknown positions.
modelYearNoModel year, a whole number. Helps resolve ambiguity for pre-1980 or partial VINs.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoPresent when the call failed. Absent on success.
noticeNoPresent when one or more VINs decoded with VPIC warnings (errorCode != 0) — check errorCode/errorText per vehicle.
vehiclesNoDecoded vehicle information per VIN
effectiveQueryNoNumber of VINs decoded and the path taken (single or batch).

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing batch decoding capacity and partial VIN wildcard behavior. No contradictions with annotations exist, though details about error handling or response structure are left to the output schema.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core purpose and then deliver key usage constraints. Every sentence carries useful information, with no filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the presence of a complete input schema, output schema, and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the remaining essentials: purpose, batch limits, and partial VIN behavior. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the VIN format, batch limit, wildcard usage, and modelYear purpose. The description reinforces these details but does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Decode') with a clear resource ('Vehicle Identification Number') and enumerates extracted attributes such as make, model, year, body type, and engine. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on safety ratings, recalls, or complaints.

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?

The description gives concrete invocation guidance: pass a single VIN or an array of up to 50, and partial VINs may use '*' for unknown positions. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the context is clear and self-contained.

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

All nhtsa-vehicle-safety-mcp-server toolsInspect
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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are mostly distinct, but nhtsa_get_safety_ratings and nhtsa_get_vehicle_safety overlap, with the latter subsuming the former. Descriptions help clarify when to use each, so agents are unlikely to misselect.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools consistently use the nhtsa_ prefix followed by a verb_noun pattern (decode_vin, get_safety_ratings, lookup_vehicles, search_recalls). The verb varies by action but follows a predictable, uniform structure.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well within the ideal range and fits the NHTSA vehicle safety domain. Each tool covers a distinct facet (VIN, ratings, complaints, recalls, investigations), justifying its presence without bloat.

Completeness4/5

The set covers core vehicle safety workflows: VIN decoding, safety ratings, complaints, recalls, and investigations. A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated tool for detailed recall or investigation record retrieval beyond search, but the existing search tools appear sufficient for most use cases.

Resources