Search СУТ (vehicle type notification — small dataset, only basic fields).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 1-based page index. | |
| type | No | Type. | |
| brand | No | Brand. | |
| number | No | СУТ number. | |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds that the dataset is small and contains only basic fields, which sets expectations about result size and detail. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or any implications of the search (e.g., partial vs. exact matching).
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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a useful qualifier. Every word earns its place with no repetition or fluff.
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 5 parameters (none required) and an output schema, the description is minimal but sets expectations about data size and field richness. However, it lacks details on search behavior, exact fields available, and how this tool differs from similarly named siblings (e.g., search_ots, search_otch). More context would be beneficial.
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%, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what is already in the schema. It only says 'basic fields' generically.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'СУТ (vehicle type notification)'. The qualifier 'small dataset, only basic fields' differentiates it from potentially more comprehensive sibling tools like search_otts, making its scope immediately clear.
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 only hints at usage context ('small dataset, only basic fields') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the 20 sibling search tools. No alternatives are named, and no exclusion criteria are given.
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.
