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 implies non-destructive behavior, but fails to mention any constraints like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and parameters, making it easy to parse. There is no redundancy or fluff, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 complexity (a simple query with three parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavior, output format, and usage context. While it meets minimum viability, it does not fully compensate for the absence of structured data, leaving room for improvement in guiding the 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all three parameters ('year', 'make', 'model') documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value by implying these parameters are used to query the API, but it does not provide additional context such as format examples, validation rules, or semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states. 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 trims available for YMM specifications API by a given year, make, and model.' It specifies the verb ('provides a list'), resource ('trims'), and scope ('YMM specifications API'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'trim', 'trims', or 'trims_2', which appear related, so it falls short of 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'trim', 'trims', or 'multiple_trims', leaving the agent without context for tool selection. This lack of usage guidelines reduces its effectiveness in a multi-tool environment.

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