list_valet_faq
Search vehicle handover FAQ.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No |
CarShake
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- Added
- Removed
- First observed
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'Search vehicle handover FAQ' without describing what the search returns, whether it's read-only, or any limitations. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that gets to the point. It is appropriately short for the simple tool, with no wasted words.
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?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, expected use case, or relationship to sibling tools. The agent lacks context for how the query affects results.
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?
The schema has one parameter 'query' with no description, and the description adds no information about it. The agent is left to infer that the query is a search term, but no syntax or semantics are explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Search') and the resource ('vehicle handover FAQ'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that create or get documentation. However, it lacks detail on the search scope or result type, so it's not fully specified.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools or exclude any use case, leaving the agent without context for selection.
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.