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' but doesn't describe output format, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, as the agent lacks essential 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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, with zero wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, data fields), potential errors, or how it integrates with the 'Advanced Decode API'. For a tool in a complex domain with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with one parameter 'year' documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the parameter is used for filtering ('by year'), but it doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 Advanced Decode API by year.' It specifies the verb ('provides'), resource ('list of makes'), and scope ('by year'), which is clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'makes', 'makes_3', etc., which appear to serve similar functions, so it doesn't fully differentiate from alternatives.

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 the 'Advanced Decode API' but doesn't specify context or prerequisites, and with multiple sibling tools (e.g., 'makes', 'makes_3'), there's no indication of differences or when this specific tool is preferred. This lack of guidance leaves the agent uncertain about selection.

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