mcp-teslamate-fleet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions ranking by distance but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, how data is sourced (e.g., from Tesla API), if it's read-only (implied by 'show'), rate limits, or what 'epic road trips' means operationally. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a tool with no annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a brief parameter explanation. No wasted sentences. However, the 'epic road trips' phrase is slightly informal but doesn't detract significantly from clarity.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context (no annotations) and usage guidelines. For a simple read operation, it's passable but could be more complete by addressing authentication or data recency.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: it explains that 'limit' controls 'Number of trips to show' with a default of 10. Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only defines type and default without description), this compensates well. However, it doesn't specify constraints like minimum/maximum values or if the limit applies to ranking criteria.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Top drives ranked by distance' indicates it retrieves and ranks trips by distance. The phrase 'your epic road trips' adds context but doesn't specify the exact resource (Tesla vehicle trips). It distinguishes from siblings like 'tesla_drives' (likely all drives) by focusing on longest trips, but could be more explicit about the Tesla vehicle context.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'tesla_drives' (which might show all drives) or 'tesla_trip_cost' (which might focus on cost analysis). The description implies ranking by distance, but doesn't explicitly state this is for analyzing longest trips versus other trip metrics.

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