mib2c-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Find vehicle messages

find_vehicle_messages

Read-only

Search the head unit’s 453 vehicle status messages by text, part ID, or state (none, info, warning, stop) to locate the message affecting a specific component.

Instructions

The head unit's 453 vehicle messages (car status): each lights one part in a state (info, warning, stop). Search by text, part id or state.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "find_vehicle_messages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`part`	No
`limit`	No
`query`	No
`state`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe-read profile, so the description only needs to add context; it does add the corpus size (453) and the part/state relationship. It omits the default result set when unfiltered and the meaning/effect of limit, which matter for a search tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single dense sentence with the resource and scale front-loaded, then the filter axes — almost no waste. The heavy compression (e.g. 'each lights one part in a state') costs a little readability.

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?

No output schema exists, and with 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations beyond read-only, the description should say more about result shape and limit/default behavior. The domain context it does give is solid but leaves real gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it maps query/part/state to text, part id, and state (the enum values are mirrored from the schema). The limit parameter and the semantics of combining multiple filters are left entirely undocumented.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific resource (the head unit's 453 vehicle messages, i.e. car status) and the action (search), plus the domain model: each message lights one part in a state of info/warning/stop. An agent can tell this apart from status/get_state, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Search by text, part id or state' implies the use case and the filter axes, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over status or get_state, whether filters combine, or what happens when no filter is supplied.

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