List spawned vehicles in an ER:LC private server via API v2, including extended vehicle data when supplied.
List spawned vehicles using API v2, including extended vehicle data when supplied.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden, and it delivers almost nothing: no auth requirements, no rate limits, no pagination or result-limit behavior, and no explanation of what "extended vehicle data" includes. "When supplied" is opaque given the tool takes no parameters at all.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriately sized. It is efficient but arguably too sparse for the behavioral questions it leaves open.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, and no parameters to lean on, so the description is the only source of information — yet it omits return shape, pagination, and any hint of what extended data means. For a listing endpoint with zero structured support elsewhere, this is under-specified.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.
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 ("List spawned vehicles") and names the API version (v2), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling erlc_v1_vehicles. It is clear what the tool does, though the v2-vs-v1 distinction is left for the agent to infer from naming rather than stated explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named despite a near-identical sibling (erlc_v1_vehicles). The phrase "when supplied" implies a conditional but never explains the condition or how to trigger it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.