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 doesn't cover other aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, pagination). For a tool with no 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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficient, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and output format. For a basic list-providing tool, this is minimally viable, but it could be more complete to aid the agent fully.

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 'data' described as 'Example value: maintenance'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain what 'data' represents or how it relates to the tool's function. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 years available for vehicle maintenance API.' It specifies the verb ('provides a list'), resource ('years'), and context ('for vehicle maintenance API'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'year', 'years', or 'years_3', which might have similar functions, so it's not a perfect 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 any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'year' or 'years', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name and description alone. This lack of explicit guidelines reduces its helpfulness.

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