Vehicle Database MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions global coverage and VIN format support but fails to describe critical traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., boolean result, detailed records). For a tool that queries sensitive data, this is a significant gap.

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 structured into three sentences but includes redundant phrasing (e.g., repeating 'API' and global aspects). Sentences like 'This API supports a wide range of VIN formats, ensuring compatibility across multiple regions and vehicle types' could be more concise. It's front-loaded with the core purpose but has some fluff that doesn't add critical value.

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 a stolen vehicle check (sensitive data query) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., privacy implications, response format), usage context compared to siblings, and output specifics. This makes it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without guesswork.

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 the 'vin' parameter documented as a string with an example. The description adds context by specifying supported VIN formats (17-characters and classic 5-13 digits) and global compatibility, which provides useful semantic information beyond the schema. However, it doesn't detail validation rules or error cases, so it meets the baseline 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: 'check for any history of theft associated with a vehicle by VIN, providing stolen record information.' It specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('stolen record information'), and key input ('VIN'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'title_check' or 'by_vin', which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 VIN formats and global coverage but doesn't compare to siblings like 'by_vin', 'by_vin_2', or 'title_check', leaving the agent without context for selection. This lack of comparative information results in a low score.

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