hptsu MCP server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

search_zotch

Search for chassis conformity assessment conclusions (ЗОТШ) by number, VIN, brand, type, vehicle category, and other specifications.

Instructions

Search ЗОТШ (chassis conformity assessment conclusion).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`vin`	No	VIN substring.
`page`	No	1-based page index.
`type`	No	Type.
`brand`	No	Brand.
`issuer`	No	Certification body name — auto-resolved to id (or pass numeric id).
`number`	No	ЗОТШ number.
`category`	No	Vehicle category.
`eco_class`	No	Ecological class — '5' or name; auto-resolved to reference id.
`page_size`	No	Rows per page (max 50).
`axis_count`	No	Axle count (e.g. '2') or exact 'axes / wheels' (e.g. '2 / 4') — auto-resolved to reference id. A bare axle count may match several wheel configs; then candidates are returned to pick from.
`wheel_formula`	No	Wheel formula (e.g. '4x2'); auto-resolved to reference id.

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

C2.2/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It fails to mention pagination, result format, destructive potential, or any constraints beyond the schema, leaving the agent uninformed.

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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with purpose. It is concise but overly minimal, lacking structure that could convey usage context—acceptable but not optimal.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool's 11 parameters and 19 siblings, the description is fundamentally incomplete. It omits guidance on result structure, pagination, and how this search differs from others, making it insufficient for effective agent decision-making.

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 coverage is 100%, minimizing the need for additional parameter detail. The tool description itself adds no value, but the baseline is met by the schema, resulting in an adequate score.

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 states 'Search ЗОТШ (chassis conformity assessment conclusion)', identifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate this search from sibling tools like search_certificates or search_declarations, making it somewhat vague for an agent with many options.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. The agent receives no hints about prerequisite filters or typical use cases.

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