Vehicle Database MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool provides a list, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it's static or dynamic data, requires authentication, has rate limits, or details the return format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely fetches API metadata.

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 directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it highly efficient and easy for an agent to parse 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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral context like data format or usage constraints. Without annotations or output schema, more detail on the return value would improve completeness for a list-providing tool.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, avoiding redundancy. A baseline of 4 is applied since it doesn't add unnecessary details beyond the schema's completeness.

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 market value API.' It specifies the verb ('Provides a list') and resource ('years available for market value API'), making it distinct from siblings like 'years' or 'years_2' which lack the market value context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'years_market_value' itself, as there's no direct sibling with identical focus.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing market value data access, or compare it to similar tools like 'years' or 'market_value_by_vin', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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