Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bluelink-mcp

bluelink-mcp

by mattoddie
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Refresh vehicle status from the car

refresh_vehicle_status

Wake the car and fetch live state, then return it like get_vehicle_status. Uses a little 12V battery and API quota, so it is rate limited.

Instructions

Wake the car and fetch live state, then return it like get_vehicle_status. Uses a little 12V battery and API quota, so it is rate limited.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "refresh_vehicle_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vehicleNoVehicle name, VIN or ID. Optional if the account has one vehicle.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnly=false, openWorld=true, destructive=false. The description adds the crucial side effects annotations cannot convey: the tool wakes the vehicle, draws on the 12V battery, consumes API quota, and is rate limited — exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking.

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; the primary action is front-loaded, and the cost/rate-limit caveat follows with zero filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Return values are covered by the output schema and the parameter by the schema, so the description's remaining job — flagging side effects and rate limiting — is done. Only the concrete rate limit or retry behavior is missing, a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'vehicle' parameter is already documented with its optional-if-one-vehicle rule, so the description adds nothing about parameters. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('wake the car and fetch live state') and explicitly ties the output shape to a named sibling ('return it like get_vehicle_status'), which lets an agent distinguish this live-fetch tool from the presumably cached read in get_vehicle_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The wake/cost/rate-limit framing gives a clear implicit selection rule: only call this when live state is needed, otherwise prefer get_vehicle_status. It stops short of an explicit 'use X instead when...' exclusion, so it falls short of a 5.

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