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 includes vehicle specifications and images, which adds some behavioral context about the return content. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens if no data is found. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 two sentences and relatively concise, but it could be more front-loaded with the core action. It starts with 'Auction API comprises of...' which is a bit wordy and could be streamlined. While not overly verbose, it doesn't maximize clarity efficiently, and some phrases like 'comprises of' are redundant.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex data (specifications and images). It mentions the data includes specifications and images, which is helpful, but doesn't cover return format, error handling, or prerequisites. With low annotation richness and schema-only parameter info, it should provide more context to be fully adequate.

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 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('vin' with an example), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond implying it might use VIN for lookup, but it doesn't explain parameter usage or constraints. Baseline is 3 since schema coverage is high, and no additional param semantics are provided.

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 states the tool provides 'information of instance of a vehicle being put up for sale through a vehicle auction in North America,' which indicates it retrieves auction data. However, it's vague about the specific action (e.g., 'get' or 'search') and doesn't clearly differentiate from siblings like 'sales_history' or 'market_value_by_vin,' which might also relate to vehicle sales data. It restates the tool name 'auction' in the context but lacks a precise verb-resource combination.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include many decode, market value, and check tools (e.g., 'by_vin', 'sales_history'), but the description doesn't specify if this is for current auctions, historical data, or how it differs. It mentions North America scope, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations are provided.

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