Search NHTSA vehicle safety recalls by make, model, and year to identify open safety campaigns before buying or repairing a vehicle.
Search NHTSA vehicle safety recalls by make, model, and year.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| make | Yes | Vehicle make (e.g. Toyota). | |
| year | Yes | Model year (e.g. 2020). | |
| model | No | Vehicle model (e.g. Camry). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only lookup, whether results are paginated, how many recalls are returned, or what the response shape looks like. For a no-annotation tool this is a meaningful gap, though the read-only nature is inferable from 'Search'.
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?
A single tight sentence with the resource and its filters front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is slightly under-specified rather than verbose, so conciseness is good but not exemplary.
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?
For a simple three-parameter search with full schema coverage, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, with zero annotations it should say more about the read-only lookup behavior and result characteristics to be fully complete.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description names the three parameters but adds no meaning beyond the schema — it does not clarify that model is optional, nor explain matching behavior (e.g. exact vs partial match on make).
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 verb (Search), the exact resource (NHTSA vehicle safety recalls), and the filtering dimensions (make, model, year). It is immediately clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from the one nearby sibling, nhtsa_decode_vin.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use framing, no mention that model is optional while make and year are required, and no guidance on when to prefer this over nhtsa_decode_vin or a VIN-based lookup. The search framing implies a retrieval use case but nothing is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.