Retrieve a vehicle's expiry items, counts, and next expiry date by providing its UUID, with optional company override.
One vehicle with its open expiry items, counts and nextExpiry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | Vehicle UUID | |
| companyId | No | Company UUID (overrides STORNO_COMPANY_ID env var) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.48Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does indicate that the response contains open expiry items, counts, and nextExpiry, which adds some context, but it does not mention read-only behavior, error handling, authorization requirements, or what happens when the UUID is invalid.
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?
The description is extremely short with no filler words, and it front-loads the core resource ('One vehicle') followed by the key returned fields. It is concise, though it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence and could benefit from a verb.
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?
The description lists the main return components but does not explain their types or formats, and there is no output schema to compensate. For a simple GET operation this is minimally adequate, but an agent is left guessing about the structure of 'counts' and 'nextExpiry'.
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%: uuid is described as 'Vehicle UUID' and companyId as 'Company UUID (overrides STORNO_COMPANY_ID env var)'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, 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?
The description clearly identifies the resource as a single vehicle and names the key data it returns (open expiry items, counts, nextExpiry). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve' and does not directly contrast with vehicles_list, though the singular 'One vehicle' implies the distinction.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vehicles_list, vehicles_create, or expiries_get. The name suggests a singular lookup, but the description does not state when an agent should choose it over sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.