Returns Reverb's full manufacturer/make list -- the value space reverb_search's own make parameter accepts. Does not include a model list -- Reverb's own search silently ignores a model filter value, so reverb_search has no model parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds real domain behavior beyond that: it discloses the list is makes-only, and that Reverb's search silently ignores a model filter value, which explains why no model list exists. That is meaningful context not derivable from annotations.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what it returns, then the scope limit and the reason. No filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and there are no parameters to document. The description covers purpose, scope boundary, and sibling relationship fully.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter detail, and appropriately redirects the reader to where make values are consumed (reverb_search).
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Returns Reverb's full manufacturer/make list') and immediately ties it to the sibling it complements ('the value space reverb_search's own make parameter accepts'). An agent can distinguish it from reverb_search and reverb_categories without opening a schema.
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?
It makes the use case explicit: this tool supplies valid make values for reverb_search. It even explains the negative case for models. It stops just short of a direct imperative ('call this before reverb_search'), so a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
