Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
io.github.sergioprats/pitwall-mcp

io.github.sergioprats/pitwall-mcp

by sergioprats
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Listar vehiculos de la cuenta

list_vehicles
Read-onlyIdempotent

List vehicles assigned to your BMW account, showing VIN, mapped-since date, and mapping type (primary or secondary) for maintenance data access.

Instructions

VINs mapeados a la cuenta, con mappedSince y mappingType (PRIMARY o SECONDARY). Fuente: GET /customers/vehicles/mappings. Cache de 30 dias.

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": "list_vehicles"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add extra context. It adds a 30-day cache and the source endpoint, which are useful behavioral traits not present in annotations.

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 pack the output fields, source endpoint, and cache policy without repetition. Information is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no parameters, a rich annotation set, and an output schema present, the description covers the remaining essentials: what is returned (VINs, mappedSince, mappingType), where it comes from, and staleness via cache. Nothing critical is missing for invoking the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description has no parameter documentation burden; no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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?

The title supplies the verb 'Listar' and the description identifies the exact resource: VINs mapped to the account, with fields mappedSince and mappingType. The source endpoint /customers/vehicles/mappings also distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools that return telematics, status, or diagnostics.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is given for when to prefer list_vehicles over search_descriptors or get_vehicle_basic_data. The usage context is only implicit from the title and fields; there are no explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives, or exclusions.

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