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 retrieves a list, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 is front-loaded with the core purpose. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 tool's simplicity (3 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters, but lacks details on behavior, output format, or error handling. For a read-only tool with no complex traits, it is complete enough to be functional but leaves gaps in understanding.

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 description mentions the parameters ('by year, make, and model'), but the input schema already has 100% description coverage, with each parameter documented (though descriptions are minimal with 'Example value: '). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, 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: 'Get the trims list by year, make, and model.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('trims list'), and includes the required parameters. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'trim', 'trims_2', or 'trims_3', which appear to have similar functions, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and does not reference sibling tools like 'trim' or 'multiple_trims' that might serve similar purposes. Usage is implied only by the parameters, with no explicit instructions.

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