Identity-first automotive intelligence for vehicle resolution, specs, safety and efficiency.
Scored across 5 tools
Each tool targets a distinct vehicle data domain—identity resolution, efficiency, fitment, safety, and general specs—so an agent can select by requested fact. The resolve_vehicle tool is clearly the prerequisite identity step rather than a conflicting getter.
Four tools follow get_vehicle_<domain> and the resolver uses verb_noun resolve_vehicle, maintaining a consistent snake_case action-first convention. Names clearly communicate both the operation and the resource domain.
Five tools is a well-scoped set for a read-only vehicle intelligence API: one resolver plus four fact-category getters. There are no redundant duplicates or unnecessary surface-area additions.
The set covers the core lookup lifecycle: resolve a VIN or YMM, then retrieve efficiency, fitment, safety, or general specifications. Since the service is read-only, CRUD gaps do not apply, and the included categories cover typical vehicle-intelligence queries.
Return EPA efficiency only when the EPA candidate is safely selected; otherwise return NEEDS_IDENTITY or NO_MATCH.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vin | No | 17-character VIN | |
| make | No | ||
| trim | No | ||
| year | No | ||
| model | No | ||
| engine | No | ||
| drivetrain | No | ||
| configuration_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose three return paths (efficiency, NEEDS_IDENTITY, NO_MATCH), which is helpful, but it does not clarify what 'safely selected' means, what input conditions trigger each path, or any side effects or data source details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary behavior and conditional outcomes. It has no filler, though the terse phrasing leaves key terms undefined.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with eight optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains return conditions but not invocation prerequisites, required parameter combinations, or how NEEDS_IDENTITY differs from NO_MATCH, leaving an agent uncertain about correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 13% with eight parameters, and the description adds no information about how any parameter contributes to selecting the EPA candidate. The agent is left to guess from property names like vin, make, trim, and engine, which is insufficient given the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Return EPA efficiency'. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on EPA efficiency data, with no overlap with fitment, safety, specs, or vehicle resolution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives conditional guidance: only return efficiency when the EPA candidate is safely selected, otherwise return NEEDS_IDENTITY or NO_MATCH. However, it does not explicitly name when to prefer this tool over siblings or state any prerequisites such as calling resolve_vehicle first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return vehicle fitment facts including tires and available wheel fitment specifications such as bolt pattern, center bore, offset, and thread size.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vin | No | 17-character VIN | |
| make | No | ||
| trim | No | ||
| year | No | ||
| model | No | ||
| engine | No | ||
| drivetrain | No | ||
| configuration_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only states a read-style action ('Return') and lists sample output topics. It does not disclose how the vehicle is identified, whether lookups are read-only, what happens with partial/ambiguous inputs, or any response behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler and useful illustrative examples. It is concise, though it sacrifices needed parameter/usage detail in favor of brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given eight optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete: it does not clarify the lookup key, output structure, or edge cases. The examples of returned specs are helpful but cannot compensate for the missing invocation context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 13% (just the VIN description), and the description never mentions the eight input parameters or how they combine. There is no compensation for the schema gap, so an agent cannot tell whether VIN, vehicle descriptors, or configuration_id are required or preferred.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and a well-defined resource ('vehicle fitment facts'), then clarifies the domain with concrete examples ('tires', 'bolt pattern', 'center bore', 'offset', 'thread size'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on efficiency, safety, specs, or vehicle resolution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over get_vehicle_specs or resolve_vehicle, and no prerequisites are stated. The only hint is the resource name itself, which requires inference rather than explicit usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return NHTSA YMM-scoped recalls, complaints, investigations, communications, and safety ratings. These facts never prove configuration identity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vin | No | 17-character VIN | |
| make | No | ||
| trim | No | ||
| year | No | ||
| limit | No | Maximum records per safety category | |
| model | No | ||
| engine | No | ||
| drivetrain | No | ||
| configuration_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that results are YMM-scoped and that they never prove configuration identity, but it does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, VIN-handling behavior, or response characteristics. This is meaningful but incomplete context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler: the first fronts the tool's purpose and data categories, and the second adds an essential limitation. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It names the returned categories but does not explain parameter roles, query construction, or response behavior. An agent could know what data domain it is in, but not reliably how to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 22%, so the description should compensate for poorly documented parameters. It adds only indirect meaning: 'YMM-scoped' implies year/make/model are central, and 'never prove configuration identity' clarifies the limitation of configuration_id. However, it does not explain vin, trim, engine, drivetrain, or how the parameters combine.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: it returns NHTSA YMM-scoped recalls, complaints, investigations, communications, and safety ratings. The safety-data category and the caveat that these facts never prove configuration identity clearly distinguish it from siblings like get_vehicle_specs and resolve_vehicle.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives an implicit usage signal: use this tool when NHTSA safety facts are needed. The statement that these facts never prove configuration identity provides a partial exclusion for identity-use cases, but it does not name sibling alternatives or state explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return MCP-permitted normalized specifications for one safely resolved AUTO411 configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vin | No | 17-character VIN | |
| make | No | ||
| trim | No | ||
| year | No | ||
| model | No | ||
| engine | No | ||
| drivetrain | No | ||
| configuration_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'MCP-permitted' and 'normalized' but does not explain what normalization entails, what 'safely resolved' means, whether the tool performs network access, what happens if the VIN is invalid, or what the return shape is. The word 'safely' hints at guardrails but is too vague to be actionable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, and the key concept ('normalized specifications') is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a vague prerequisite ('safely resolved'), the description is not complete enough for an agent to call this tool correctly. It does not explain how to construct a valid request, what the response contains, or how this differs from sibling tools like resolve_vehicle.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 13%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. With 8 parameters and 0 required, an agent cannot tell which combination of vin/make/model/year/etc. is needed to identify a configuration, nor how the parameters relate to 'safely resolved AUTO411 configuration'. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('normalized specifications for one safely resolved AUTO411 configuration'), and the name 'get_vehicle_specs' clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_vehicle_efficiency or get_vehicle_fitment. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself, so it falls just 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like resolve_vehicle or get_vehicle_safety. The phrase 'safely resolved AUTO411 configuration' implies a prerequisite (the configuration must already be resolved), but it does not state it clearly or explain when to choose this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Resolve a VIN or year/make/model safely. MATCHED_SINGLE is answerable; NEEDS_IDENTITY requires the user to choose; NO_MATCH/UNAVAILABLE must not be guessed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vin | No | 17-character VIN | |
| make | No | ||
| trim | No | ||
| year | No | ||
| model | No | ||
| engine | No | ||
| drivetrain | No | ||
| configuration_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does provide important behavioral guardrails: MATCHED_SINGLE is answerable, NEEDS_IDENTITY requires user choice, and NO_MATCH/UNAVAILABLE must not be guessed. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how matching works, or what the response payload looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded, with no filler. The key safety constraint about not guessing is placed prominently. It is efficient, though perhaps too terse given the complexity of the 8-parameter schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema and no annotation coverage, so the description must do more. It covers high-level match statuses but leaves unclear how to construct valid requests using the optional refinement fields, what the resolution response structure is, and how the tool behaves in ambiguous cases beyond NEEDS_IDENTITY. This is incomplete for a tool with 8 optional parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 13% (only 'vin' is described), so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the primary input can be either a VIN or a year/make/model combination, but it says nothing about trim, engine, drivetrain, or configuration_id, leaving half the parameters semantically undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Resolve') on a specific resource ('a VIN or year/make/model') and introduces match-status vocabulary. It is clearly distinct from the sibling get_vehicle_* tools, though it does not explicitly name them or state the difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Resolve a VIN or year/make/model safely' implies this is an identity-resolution step before retrieving vehicle data, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus the get_vehicle_* siblings. The statuses imply a workflow (answer when MATCHED_SINGLE, ask when NEEDS_IDENTITY), but no direct exclusions or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_vehicle_efficiencyget_vehicle_fitmentget_vehicle_safetyget_vehicle_specsresolve_vehicleVehicle data for AI: VIN decoder, automotive specs, stolen checks, valuation and way more.
VIN decoding and European vehicle data for automotive workflows.
Decode any VIN and check open NHTSA safety recalls. Free official US government data, no auth.
MarketCheck automotive data: search US/UK listings, predict prices, decode VINs, market history.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
