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 clarify if this is a read-only operation, what the output format might be (e.g., JSON list, paginated), or any potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary details. It front-loads the key action ('provides a list') and specifies the resource and parameters clearly, making it easy to parse and understand 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 the complexity of a tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error handling, or behavioral traits, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should compensate more to provide a complete picture, but it falls short.

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 each parameter ('year', 'make', 'model') documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying these parameters filter the trim list, but it doesn't provide additional context like valid formats or examples beyond what's in 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 trims available for electric vehicle specifications API by a given year, make, and model.' It specifies the verb ('provides a list'), resource ('trims'), and scope ('electric vehicle specifications API'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'trims_2' or 'trims_3' which might have different scopes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'multiple_trims' or other trim-related tools, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 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 doesn't mention when to choose 'trim' over 'trims_2', 'trims_3', or 'multiple_trims', nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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