tesla_get_climateRetrieve a Tesla vehicle's inside and outside temperature in Celsius and climate on/off status without waking the car.
Inside and outside temperature in Celsius, and whether climate is on. Does not wake the car.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vin | No | Vehicle name or masked VIN. Omit this when the account has one car. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly and idempotent, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing that the call does not wake a sleeping vehicle, which is a non-obvious side-effect trait not encoded in any structured field. It stops short of saying what happens if the car is asleep and unreachable.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the return payload front-loaded and the wake caveat as a trailing qualifier. Nothing to trim.
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?
An output schema exists so return shape needn't be described, and the description still previews the payload. For a zero-required-param read tool with full annotation and schema coverage, the only missing piece is behavior when the vehicle is asleep or offline.
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 coverage is 100% and the single vin parameter is fully documented in-schema, including the 'omit when the account has one car' guidance. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Names the specific resource (climate readings) and enumerates exactly what comes back: inside/outside temperature in Celsius plus climate on/off. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from tesla_get_status or tesla_get_odometer, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'get' and doesn't state the car association directly.
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 clause 'Does not wake the car' implicitly tells the agent to prefer this over tesla_wake_and_refresh when the vehicle is asleep, but that inference is left to the reader. It never explicitly names tesla_wake_and_refresh or tesla_get_status as alternatives, nor states when this tool is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.