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 the tool as an API that 'provides details', implying a read-only operation, but lacks information on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or data sources. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and geographic limitation. It is front-loaded with the core functionality, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing the outputs or usage scenarios.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, rate limits), output format, and differentiation from sibling tools. For a tool with 2 parameters and many similar alternatives, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand its full context.

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 ('license_plate' and 'state') documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the inputs ('taking license plate number and state') and clarifying the geographic scope ('only USA states'), but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers.

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 details about year, make, model and VIN by taking license plate number and state', specifying the verb ('provides details'), resource ('year, make, model and VIN'), and inputs. It distinguishes itself by focusing on USA states, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'by_plate_and_state' or 'decode'.

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 some context by stating 'This API covers only USA states', which implies a usage boundary. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'by_plate_and_state' or 'decode', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions beyond the geographic scope.

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