vin-recall-mcp

Decode VIN

decode_vin

Read-onlyIdempotent

Decode a 17-character US vehicle VIN into make, model, year, body class, engine cylinders, fuel type, drive type, and assembly plant country, using the NHTSA vPIC database. Covers US-market vehicles built from 1981 onward (the 17-character VIN standard); pre-1981 and some foreign-market vehicles may return partial or no data. Decoded fields are manufacturer-submitted and individual fields may be missing even for a successfully decoded 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": {
      "vin": "<vin>"
    },
    "name": "decode_vin"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`vin`	Yes	A 17-character US vehicle VIN (letters and digits, excluding I, O, and Q).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`vin`	Yes
`make`	No
`note`	No
`year`	No
`found`	Yes
`model`	No
`summary`	Yes
`fuelType`	No
`bodyClass`	No
`driveType`	No
`plantCountry`	No
`engineCylinders`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJul 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds valuable context about the data source, coverage limitations, and that individual fields may be missing even for a successful decode, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output fields, followed by scope and caveats. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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?

Given a single well-documented parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, limitations, and data quality caveats effectively. It does not explicitly address invalid VIN handling or network errors, but these are not critical for a straightforward read-only decoding tool.

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?

The input schema fully describes the vin parameter with format details (17 characters, excluding I, O, Q), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool decodes a VIN into specific vehicle attributes (make, model, year, etc.) using the NHTSA vPIC database. This is a specific verb+resource that distinct from the sibling tool check_recalls, which likely handles recall checks.

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 explicitly specifies which VINs are covered (US-market, 1981+) and notes limitations for pre-1981 and foreign vehicles, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention an alternative tool, but the only sibling is for a different purpose, so the guidance is sufficient.

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

All vin-recall-mcp 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.