tesla_software_updatesFetch firmware version history and install dates from TeslaMate, optionally filtered by car ID, to track vehicle software changes.
Firmware version history -- all recorded software versions and install dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| car_id | No | Filter by vehicle ID (default: TESLA_CAR_ID env or first car) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'History' and 'all recorded' imply a read-only, unfiltered listing, which is useful, but the description says nothing about pagination, ordering, or the fact that the schema actually supports filtering by vehicle.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the resource. There is mild redundancy between 'firmware version history' and 'all recorded software versions', but nothing is wasted overall.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is documented. What is missing is any routing against the sibling 'tesla_version' and any note on ordering or scope limits, which leaves the definition merely adequate.
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% and the single car_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its env-var default. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 resource and what it contains ('firmware version history -- all recorded software versions and install dates'), which is more than a restatement of the title. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'tesla_version', which an agent could easily confuse with a firmware-version tool.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the near-synonymous sibling 'tesla_version'. The agent must infer the intended scope entirely on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.