Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
alnasl-micro

mcPER

by alnasl-micro
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

list_tables

Lists parts tables (drawings) for a catalogue subgroup with applicability; pass a VIN to see which tables fit the vehicle.

Instructions

List the parts tables (drawings) of a subgroup, with their applicability. Pass vin to see which tables fit the vehicle.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mvsNoSINCOM/MVS version code (e.g. "183.829.0.0") when no VIN is available; less precise than a VIN.
vinNo17-character VIN. When given, each item gets fits = yes/no/maybe for this vehicle.
langNoLanguage for descriptions: ISO code (ja, en, it, de, ...) or ePER code. Default ja; falls back to English.
driveNoForce left (L) or right (R) hand drive, like the ePER drive selector. Default: from the VIN, else left.
groupYes
subgroupYes
catalogueYesCatalogue code (CAT_COD), e.g. "PK". Get it from decode_vin or list_catalogues.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results include applicability and that vin adds fit information, but it omits read-only confirmation, pagination, error behavior, and output shape.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the vin hint follows immediately.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description does not explain the result structure or the hierarchy of catalogue/group/subgroup. It is minimally callable but leaves significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description only reiterates the vin behavior without adding syntax, constraints, or meaning for catalogue, group, and subgroup beyond what the schema shows.

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 verb and resource: list the parts tables (drawings) of a subgroup, with applicability. This clearly distinguishes it from get_table_parts, but does not explicitly contrast with list_subgroups or list_groups.

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?

The description implies usage context by explaining that passing vin shows which tables fit the vehicle. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus list_subgroups, get_table_parts, or other siblings.

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