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 states the tool 'Provides a list', which suggests a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any fluff. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned list contains (e.g., model names, IDs), any behavioral traits like error handling or pagination, or how it fits among sibling tools. For a tool with 2 required parameters and no structured support, more context is needed.

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 beyond the schema by mentioning these parameters in context ('by a given year and make'), but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or constraints. 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 models available for Advanced Decode API by a given year and make.' It specifies the verb ('Provides a list'), resource ('models'), and scope ('by a given year and make'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'model', 'models', or 'models_3', which prevents a perfect score.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'by a given year and make', but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'model', 'models', 'models_3'), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's preferred, leaving the agent to guess based on naming alone.

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