Retrieve a catalogue of registry kinds for Russian and EAEU vehicle compliance documents including type approvals, certificates, declarations, and notifications.
Return the catalogue of registry kinds exposed by the hpt.su public API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behaviors. It only states the return value, but does not mention that it is a read-only safe operation, any rate limits, or data freshness. The agent must infer behavior from the tool name and default assumptions.
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 concise sentence (12 words) that includes the key information: what it returns and from which API. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient.
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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is largely complete. It identifies the resource and source. Additional details about when to use it would be beneficial, but the simplicity keeps this from being a significant gap.
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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds the context that the API is public, but parameter semantics are not applicable. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
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 returns a catalogue of registry kinds from the hpt.su public API. The verb 'Return' is adequate and the resource is specific, differentiating it from sibling list_* tools that return different entities. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings.
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. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned. For a parameterless tool, this is a minor gap but still a lack of guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.