Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official

datasets_vehicle_listings_item

Retrieve a vehicle listing by its :<source_listing_id> id, returning VIN, price, mileage, seller, location, and timestamps. Unknown ids return 404.

Instructions

Get a vehicle listing from dataset. Returns one vehicle listing from the dataset by id, formatted <source>:<source_listing_id>, such as carmax:28187774. The record has VIN, year, make, model, trim, mileage, price and previous price, colours, drivetrain, seller, location and first and last seen times. An unknown id returns 404.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesVehicle listing id, formatted <source>:<source_listing_id> (e.g. carmax:28187774)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.16.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a fair job: it discloses the returned field set (VIN, year, make/model/trim, mileage, price history, seller, location, seen times) and the error behavior (404 on unknown id). It does not cover auth needs, rate limits, or freshness/caching, which are minor for a read lookup but would push it higher.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the identifier contract, then the payload and failure mode. The field enumeration is long but earns its place because there is no output schema to convey the return shape.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the return fields and the 404 case, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. It is only mildly short of complete: it does not enumerate valid `<source>` prefixes or say where ids are obtained (presumably the search sibling).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single `id` parameter is already documented in the schema, including the same `<source>:<source_listing_id>` format and example. The description restates that format, adding no syntax or constraint beyond it — baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a vehicle listing') with clear scope: a single record retrieved by id. It is distinguishably different from the sibling datasets_vehicle_listings_search / _facets / _price_history, since it is the point-lookup tool keyed on id.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied through 'by `id`' and the id format, so an agent can infer this is the retrieval-by-identifier path, but the description never states when to use this instead of the search/facets siblings or where a valid id should come from. No explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools