Apibara Vehicle Auction Data

Get vehicle auction history

get_vehicle_history

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use for retained Copart + IAAI auction appearances for one supported vehicle. This is auction-specific history, not complete ownership, registration or accident history.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`identifier`	Yes	VIN, lot number or slug_vin accepted by the canonical vehicle detail endpoint.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`meta`	No	Pagination metadata. Treat cursor values as opaque.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 22, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / identifier / description

Previous value: -"VIN or slug_vin accepted by the canonical vehicle detail endpoint."New value: +"VIN, lot number or slug_vin accepted by the canonical vehicle detail endpoint."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Structured JSON returned by the canonical Apibara Vehicle Auction Data API. Source-dependent fields may be null or absent.",
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "meta": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Pagination metadata. Treat cursor values as opaque.",
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 18, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful boundaries about the data being auction-specific and retained, but leaves terms like 'retained' and the exact coverage of auction appearances unexplained. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence gives the action and scope; the second clarifies what the tool does not cover. All content earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the key context: supported sources, scope, and exclusions. It could improve by explaining 'retained' or pointing to an alternative for full history, but nothing critical is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single identifier parameter, and the schema already explains accepted formats (VIN, lot number, slug_vin). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond implying one vehicle, so the baseline applies.

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 states the tool is for retrieving retained Copart and IAAI auction appearances for one supported vehicle, and explicitly distinguishes this from complete ownership, registration, or accident history. This makes the purpose concrete and helps separate it from sibling tools like get_vehicle and get_related_vehicles.

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?

It gives a clear use case ('for ... one supported vehicle') and a strong exclusion ('not complete ownership, registration or accident history'). It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to know when to choose this tool versus a full-history lookup.

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

All Apibara Vehicle Auction Data 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.

Resources

Need Help?