Skip to main content
Glama

nhtsa-vehicle-safety-mcp-server

by io.github.cyanheads

Nhtsa Search Recalls

nhtsa_search_recalls
Read-only

Search recall campaigns by vehicle or campaign number. Use for specific recall lookups, recall history for a vehicle, or looking up a known campaign number.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
makeNoVehicle manufacturer. Required with model and modelYear when not using campaignNumber.
modelNoVehicle model. Required with make and modelYear.
dateRangeNoFilter recalls by received date. Applied locally since the API lacks native date filtering.
modelYearNoModel year, a whole number. Required with make and model.
campaignNumberNoNHTSA campaign number (e.g., "20V682000"). When provided, returns the campaign detail plus every vehicle it covers. Mutually exclusive with make/model/modelYear.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoPresent when the call failed. Absent on success.
noticeNoGuidance when no recalls are found — e.g. how to verify make/model/year spelling.
recallsNoMatching recall campaigns
totalCountNoTotal recalls matching criteria
effectiveQueryNoThe search key used: campaign number, or "make model modelYear" for vehicle queries.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the non-mutating safety profile, so the description does not contradict annotations. However, the description itself adds little behavioral detail beyond the obvious search semantics, such as return behavior, pagination, rate limits, or the local dateRange filtering; the schema notes the local filtering, but the top-level description does not.

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?

The description is two clean sentences, front-loading the core function first and then adding meaningful use-case context. Every phrase contributes useful information, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary jargon.

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?

The presence of a complete input schema and output schema reduces the burden on the description. It explains the main situations in which the tool should be used, and the schema handles the parameter details. A small gap remains because the description does not mention how dateRange is applied locally or how campaignNumber expands to vehicle coverage, but those are covered by schema text.

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%, with each parameter already explaining its role and constraints, including mutual exclusivity between campaignNumber and vehicle fields. The description phrase 'by vehicle or campaign number' adds a helpful framing but no additional types, requirements, or formats beyond what the schema contains.

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 clearly identifies the resource (recall campaigns) and the operation (search), and enumerates the two entry points: vehicle details or campaign number. It is unmistakably different from sibling tools by name and content, which are about complaints, investigations, ratings, VIN decoding, and vehicle lookup.

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 explicit use cases: specific recall lookups, recall history for a vehicle, and known campaign number lookups. It does not explicitly say when not to use the tool or point to a specific alternative, so it falls just short of a 5, but enough context for most agents to choose correctly.

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