CarMax MCP Server

schedule_test_drive

Schedule a test drive at CarMax for a specific vehicle by providing stock number and contact details. Get confirmation or next steps.

Instructions

Schedule a test drive appointment at CarMax for a specific vehicle. Returns confirmation details or next steps.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "stock_number": "<stock_number>",
      "first_name": "<first_name>",
      "last_name": "<last_name>",
      "email": "<email>",
      "phone": "<phone>"
    },
    "name": "schedule_test_drive"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	Yes	Customer email address
`phone`	Yes	Customer phone number (10 digits, e.g., '5551234567')
`last_name`	Yes	Customer last name
`first_name`	Yes	Customer first name
`stock_number`	Yes	CarMax stock number for the vehicle to test drive
`preferred_date`	No	Preferred date for test drive (e.g., 'tomorrow', 'Saturday', '2024-03-15')
`preferred_time`	No	Preferred time (e.g., 'morning', 'afternoon', '2:00 PM')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the outcome ('confirmation details or next steps') but doesn't mention permissions, confirmation behavior, what happens if the slot is unavailable, or whether this is a firm booking or request.

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 sentences, no fluff, directly states purpose and outcome.

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?

With 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description gives only a high-level outcome. It lacks detail on handling conflicts, appointment confirmation mechanics, or what 'next steps' means, making it adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond 'specific vehicle', leaving the schema to fully document each field.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Specific verb 'schedule' identifies the action, resource 'test drive appointment at CarMax' is clear, and 'for a specific vehicle' scopes it. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_inventory and get_vehicle_details.

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 use when booking a test drive but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. searching inventory or getting vehicle details first, nor any exclusion criteria.

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

Deploy Server