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. It mentions the tool 'provides a list' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. 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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to 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 tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for a simple list-providing tool. However, it lacks details on output format or behavioral context, which could be helpful. It meets the minimum viable standard but has clear gaps.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to document. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate since no parameters exist, and the schema fully covers this.

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 YMM specifications API.' It specifies the verb ('provides a list') and resource ('years'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'year', 'years', 'years_2', etc., which likely serve similar purposes. This makes it clear but not fully distinct.

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 (e.g., 'year', 'years', 'years_2', 'years_3', 'years_5', 'years_6'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or differences, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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