Vehicle Database MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it states what the API provides (oil type and specifications), it doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is purely functional without operational context.

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, efficient sentence that states the core functionality. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be more front-loaded with distinguishing information given the many similar tools in the sibling list.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'specifications' includes, the format of returned data, error handling, or prerequisites. Given the complexity implied by returning technical specifications and the lack of structured metadata, more descriptive context is needed.

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% with a single 'vin' parameter documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (it mentions 'by vin' but doesn't explain VIN format requirements, validation, or examples). With complete schema coverage, 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 states the tool retrieves 'oil type and its specifications by vin', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'by_vin', 'decode_by_vin', or 'vin_decode', leaving ambiguity about how this specific oil-focused lookup differs from general VIN decoding tools.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple VIN-related tools available (by_vin, decode_by_vin, vin_decode, etc.), the description doesn't indicate whether this is for maintenance purposes, what makes it different, or when another tool might be more appropriate.

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