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 states 'Get the model list' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, pagination). For a tool with no 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Get the model list by year and make'. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, making it easy to parse 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values (e.g., what a 'model list' contains), error cases, or how it differs from similar tools. For a tool in a crowded namespace with many siblings, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 both parameters (year and make) documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning these parameters ('by year and make'), but doesn't provide additional meaning like expected formats (e.g., 'year' as YYYY), examples, or constraints beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get the model list by year and make' clearly states the action (get) and resource (model list), but it's vague about what 'model list' refers to (vehicle models? data models?) and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'model', 'models_2' through 'models_7', or 'models_market_value'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity and differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'model', 'decode', and 'makes', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the parameters (year and make), but no explicit guidelines are provided.

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