TN VED EAEU classifier lookup.
Note: TN VED codes are linked **only** to certificates and declarations —
not to vehicle type approvals or safety reports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 1-based page index. | |
| query | No | Free-text description search. | |
| prefix | No | TN VED code prefix (e.g. '8704'). | |
| page_size | No | Rows per page (max 50). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It adds useful context about the scope of linked documents but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, idempotent, or describe any side effects. Pagination behavior is implied by schema parameters but not stated. The description adds moderate value beyond the schema.
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 extremely concise: two sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds a critical usage note. 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?
Given the tool has an output schema (present but not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential scope limitation. However, it could mention that it returns a paginated list or offer a brief example, but for a simple lookup tool, this is nearly complete.
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 100%, with all four parameters (page, query, prefix, page_size) described in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-specific context or examples, so the description does not enhance meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states 'TN VED EAEU classifier lookup,' specifying the verb (lookup) and resource (TN VED EAEU classifier). It further distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting that TN VED codes are linked only to certificates and declarations, not to vehicle type approvals or safety reports, which are likely covered by other tools.
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 includes a clear scope limitation (only for certificates/declarations, not for vehicle type approvals/safety reports), which guides when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for excluded use cases, so it stops short of a perfect score.
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.