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 return content (salvage record status, date, cause) and coverage scope, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, 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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and scope. There is no unnecessary information, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides basic purpose and scope but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or error handling. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps that could hinder effective use by an AI agent.

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 the parameter 'vin' documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as VIN format constraints or validation rules. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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: 'Check title information of any vehicle with VIN' and specifies what it returns ('if the vehicle has salvage record or not on a particular date along with cause'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'stolen_check' or 'vin_decode' by focusing on title/salvage status, but could be more explicit about differentiation from similar tools like 'by_vin' or 'by_vin_2'.

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 through 'Coverage: All vehicles listed in North America,' which helps determine applicability. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'by_vin' or 'stolen_check,' and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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