create_handover_checklist
Generate a vehicle handover checklist.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| use_case | No |
CarShake
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- Added
- Removed
- First observed
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It reveals only that a checklist is 'generated' but provides no details on side effects, permissions, return format, or what the checklist entails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, grammatically correct sentence with no fluff. It is concise, though extremely brief, which slightly limits its utility.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), but the description omits essential context such as what the checklist contains, how 'use_case' affects the output, and any prerequisites. It is not complete enough for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'use_case' parameter. The description adds no meaning to the schema; the parameter's purpose is entirely unexplained.
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 description clearly states the action ('Generate') and the object ('a vehicle handover checklist'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that provide guides or FAQs, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a use case for vehicle handover but does not state prerequisites or comparisons with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: creating a checklist, getting damage documentation guidance, and searching FAQ. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with verbs 'create', 'get', and 'list'. The naming is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
Three tools is well within the ideal range and each tool earns its place by covering a distinct aspect of vehicle handover assistance. The count is neither too thin nor excessive.
Completeness4/5
The set covers the core needs for a handover assistance server: checklist generation, damage documentation guidance, and FAQ lookup. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool to manage or submit completed checklists, but for the apparent scope it is reasonably complete.