Skip to main content
Glama

nhtsa-vehicle-safety-mcp-server

by io.github.cyanheads

Nhtsa Get Safety Ratings

nhtsa_get_safety_ratings
Read-only

Get NCAP crash test ratings and ADAS feature availability for a vehicle. Use when the user specifically wants crash test stars, rollover risk, or wants to compare safety features across vehicles. NCAP data available from 1990+, best coverage for 2011+.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
makeNoVehicle manufacturer. Required with model and modelYear when vehicleId is omitted.
modelNoVehicle model. Required with make and modelYear when vehicleId is omitted.
modelYearNoModel year, a whole number. Required with make and model when vehicleId is omitted. NCAP coverage increases significantly for 2011+.
vehicleIdNoSpecific NCAP vehicle ID (from prior results). Skips the year/make/model lookup.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoPresent when the call failed. Absent on success.
noticeNoGuidance when no NCAP ratings are found — e.g. coverage notes or adjacent year suggestion.
ratingsNoSafety ratings per vehicle variant

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'get' verb is consistent. It adds some context (coverage years) but doesn't disclose limitations like missing data for some models or that results may be empty. With annotations covering side effects, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences front-load the core purpose and usage guidance. No filler or repetition. The coverage note is useful and concise.

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?

Output schema is present, so return values are covered. The description includes purpose, usage, and data coverage. What's missing is an explicit note about what happens if no ratings are found, but the readOnlyHint and schema cover most behavior.

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 all 4 parameters are described structurally. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., no relationship between parameters or format requirements). Baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get NCAP crash test ratings and ADAS feature availability for a vehicle.' The verb and resource are specific, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'nhtsa_get_vehicle_safety', so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

Says explicitly when to use: 'when the user specifically wants crash test stars, rollover risk, or wants to compare safety features across vehicles.' It also mentions data coverage (2011+). However, it doesn't state when not to use or name alternative tools, so it's not a full 5.

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