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 a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as data format, potential errors, or performance considerations. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly states the purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured for its simplicity.

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 sibling tools and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'YMMT' means, the format of the year list, or how it differs from similar tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand its full context.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description adds value by specifying 'for YMMT', which implies a context or scope, though it's not fully explained. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it appropriately avoids redundancy.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'year list for YMMT', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'year', 'year_2', 'years_2' through 'years_6', and 'years_market_value', which appear to serve similar functions, so it's not fully specific.

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. With many sibling tools that might overlap (e.g., 'year', 'years_2'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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