generate_vehicle_recordGenerate a synthetic Nigerian vehicle record, optionally filtered by state, to create realistic fake vehicle data for testing and development.
Generates a synthetic Nigerian vehicle record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / properties / state / descriptionRemoved value: -"The state of the preferred vehicle"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "value": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "value"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the key behavioral fact that the record is synthetic and Nigerian. It does not go deeper into randomness, determinism, or state-dependent behavior, but for a simple generator with an output schema this is adequate.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repeated title words. Every word earns its place.
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's low complexity, an output schema, and safety annotations, the definition is mostly adequate. It is incomplete only in usage guidance and the meaning/effect of the optional state parameter, which prevent it from being fully self-sufficient.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the only parameter, state. The word 'Nigerian' hints at the domain but does not explain what values state accepts or how it affects the generated record, so the parameter semantics are not compensated outside the schema.
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 states a specific action ('Generates') and resource ('synthetic Nigerian vehicle record'), which is clear and distinct enough from sibling tools like generate_license_plate. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling generate_* tools, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 use case is implied: call this when a synthetic Nigerian vehicle record is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling record generators (e.g., generate_education_record, generate_work_record) or what the optional state parameter is for.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.