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 full burden. It describes what data is returned (recall details) but lacks critical behavioral information: authentication requirements (though 'x-Authkey' is in schema), rate limits, error handling, pagination, or whether it's read-only/destructive. The mention of 'API' suggests it's a read operation, but this isn't explicitly stated.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and key return data. The second adds coverage details. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for return fields).

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 parameter that doesn't specify the vehicle (only auth), the description is incomplete. It mentions return data but doesn't detail the output structure or how to identify the vehicle (VIN parameter missing). For a recall tool with many siblings, more context on uniqueness and usage 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 one parameter ('x-Authkey') documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain how to specify the vehicle (e.g., via VIN) or clarify the auth key usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers the parameter, but the description doesn't compensate for missing vehicle identification details.

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 on all the open recalls of any vehicle' with specific information like date, recall ID, and remedy. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on recalls rather than decoding, market value, or other vehicle data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'title_check' or 'stolen_check' that might also involve vehicle safety/status checks.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions coverage for VINs from 1952-2023, which implies when the tool is applicable, but offers no explicit advice on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'by_vin' or other decode tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or comparison to sibling tools for recall-specific queries.

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