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 operation ('provides a list'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform the agent adequately.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on usage, behavior, and output. For a basic list tool, it's functional but could be more informative to fully guide 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 one parameter 'data' described as 'Example value: repair'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining the parameter's role or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 years available for vehicle repairs API.' It specifies the verb ('provides'), resource ('list of years'), and context ('vehicle repairs API'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'years', 'years_2', 'years_4', etc., which likely serve similar purposes, so it's not fully differentiated.

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 mentions 'vehicle repairs API' but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to siblings such as 'years' or 'vehicle_repair'. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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