Retrieve recent fuel fill-up records for the user's vehicles, including litres pumped, fuel grade, price per litre, total ZAR cost, station name, logged date, and calculated L/100km fuel economy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of fuel logs to return (default 25, max 100). | |
| search | No | Optional search keyword for station name or notes. | |
| vehicle_id | No | Optional ID of a specific vehicle to filter fuel logs. |
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Retrieve') and lists the data fields returned, which adds useful context. However, it does not explicitly state read-only safety, pagination behavior, or any side effects, leaving gaps for an agent unfamiliar with the tool.
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 that efficiently conveys the action, resource, scope, and return fields. Every part earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate context by enumerating the returned fields and implying a read-only retrieval. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning default sorting order or pagination beyond the limit, but it is sufficient for an agent to call 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 100%, so the input schema already fully documents the limit, search, and vehicle_id parameters. The description adds no new syntax or semantic details about these parameters beyond what is in the schema, so the 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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource as 'recent fuel fill-up records for the user's vehicles'. It also enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's scope unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_fuel_prices or list_sars_trips, which would be needed for a 5.
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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as get_fuel_prices or list_sars_trips. Usage is only implied by the name and description.
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.