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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Provides a list', implying a read-only operation, but does not cover other behavioral aspects such as error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (since there is no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with two required parameters.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly. However, it could be slightly improved by including key usage details to enhance clarity without sacrificing brevity.

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 complexity of having two required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and usage guidelines, which are crucial for the agent to operate this tool effectively. The description does not compensate for the missing structured data, leaving significant contextual gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema already documents both parameters ('year' and 'data') with descriptions. The description adds minimal value by implying the 'year' parameter is used to filter makes, but it does not explain the 'data' parameter's role or provide additional context beyond the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Provides a list of makes available for vehicle maintenance API by year.' It specifies the verb ('Provides a list'), resource ('makes'), and context ('vehicle maintenance API'), which is clear and specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its many sibling tools (e.g., 'makes_2', 'makes_3', etc.), which would be needed for a score of 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'by year' but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'makes_2' or 'makes_3'. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate, leading to potential confusion given the many similar tools.

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