hptsu MCP server

Official

by HPT-SU

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

list_vehicle_models

Search vehicle models by brand and name to get canonical records from the hpt.su Russian/EAEU compliance registry.

Instructions

Resolve a vehicle model name (within a brand) to canonical record.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Model name substring.
`page`	No	1-based page index.
`brand`	No	Brand name (auto-resolved to id) or numeric brand id.
`page_size`	No	Rows per page (max 50).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose that the tool returns a list (supporting pagination) rather than a single canonical record. Behavior like fuzzy matching or error handling is not mentioned.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Single sentence, concise but lacks structure. Could be improved with clearer separation of purpose and behavior.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is somewhat complete but misses key behavioral aspects like listing/pagination. It does not fully align with the tool's name and input schema.

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%. The description adds high-level intent but does not clarify parameter specifics beyond what the schema already provides, such as how the name substring works or the role of page.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Resolve a vehicle model name (within a brand) to canonical record' suggests a single-record resolution, but the tool name 'list_vehicle_models' and input schema with pagination indicate it returns multiple records. This ambiguity reduces clarity.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_brands or search tools. No mention of prerequisites or context for use.

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