mcp-samsara

samsara_list_vehicles

List all fleet vehicles, returning details including ID, name, VIN, make, model, and external IDs for TMS integration.

Instructions

List all vehicles in the fleet. Returns vehicle details including ID, name, VIN, make, model, and external IDs for TMS integration.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "samsara_list_vehicles"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`after`	No	Pagination cursor from previous response
`limit`	No	Maximum number of vehicles to return (default: 50, max: 512)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0-beta.1Aug 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return fields (ID, name, VIN, make, model, external IDs) and scope (fleet-wide), but does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or prerequisites. The phrase 'all vehicles' could oversimplify the paginated limit behavior implied by the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every phrase contributes: the action, scope, and key return fields. This is efficient and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with no output schema and no required parameters, the description is fairly complete. It states what it returns and the fleet scope. A minor gap is the lack of explicit pagination instructions, but the schema's 'after' parameter allows an agent to infer pagination, so it does not warrant a lower score.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (after, limit), so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already structured. The baseline 3 applies here because the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'vehicles in the fleet', and differentiates from siblings by being plural (all vehicles) versus samsara_get_vehicle (singular). It also names the key fields returned, making the purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the tool's nature: when you need all vehicles, use this. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or alternatives like samsara_get_vehicle for a single vehicle. No clear context or exclusions are provided beyond the name and description.

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