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 describes a read-only operation ('provides a list'), which is straightforward, but it doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves in practice.

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 front-loads the core functionality. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema) and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It lacks details on output format, error cases, or how it differs from sibling tools, which could help an agent use it more effectively. However, for a simple list-providing tool, it meets minimal expectations.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('year' and 'data') with descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the 'year' parameter is used for filtering makes and 'data' might relate to 'repair', but it doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 makes available for vehicle repairs API by year.' It specifies the verb ('provides'), resource ('list of makes'), and context ('vehicle repairs API by year'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'make', 'makes', 'makes_2', etc., which likely have overlapping functionality.

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 minimal usage guidance. It implies the tool should be used when needing makes for vehicle repairs by year, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'makes', 'makes_2', or 'makes_5'. No exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent with little direction on tool selection.

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