Vehicle Database MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool provides 'instant access' and 'accurate' estimates based on market analysis, but doesn't specify rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness ('upda...' is cut off), error conditions, or response format. Key operational details are missing.

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 verbose and repetitive, with multiple sentences about the service's capabilities and data sources that don't directly help tool selection. It's cut off mid-sentence ('upda...'), suggesting incomplete editing. The core purpose is buried in promotional language rather than front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks crucial information about response format, error handling, authentication, rate limits, and differentiation from sibling tools. The incomplete sentence further reduces completeness.

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% with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds context that these parameters represent 'year, make, model and trim' for vehicle identification, but doesn't provide additional semantic details beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., format requirements, trim handling). Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete 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: 'Get access to trade-in, private party and retail values for any vehicle' and specifies it provides market value estimates based on year, make, and model. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'market_value_by_vin' by using YMM parameters instead of VIN, though this distinction could be more explicit.

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 mentions the tool provides market values for vehicles by year, make, and model, but offers no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'market_value_by_vin' or 'by_plate_and_state'. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparative scenarios.

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