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. While it mentions the data scope (1999-2023) and types of data returned, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what happens with invalid parameters, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the response takes. For a data retrieval tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward lookup tool, though it could be slightly more structured by separating scope from data types. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens when parameters don't match existing vehicles, what the response structure looks like, or how to interpret the 'etc.' in the data listing. The agent would need to guess about important operational aspects.

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%, so the schema already documents all four required parameters (year, make, model, trim). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's implied by the tool's purpose. It doesn't explain parameter formats, constraints, or relationships between them. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the documentation work.

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: retrieving vehicle data (specs, engine details, transmission, etc.) for a specific vehicle from 1999-2023. It specifies the resource (vehicle data) and scope (1999-2023), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'decode_by_ymmt' or 'market_value_by_ymm' that might also use year/make/model parameters.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (like decode_by_ymmt, market_value_by_ymm, universal_vin_decode), the description doesn't indicate whether this is the primary lookup tool for YMMT queries or when other tools might be more appropriate.

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