Skip to content
AutomotiveMCP
Spec§1RFC / v0.1

Scope, Goals & Non-Goals

What this specification covers — the retail dealership data and tool layer for AI agents — and the adjacent territory it deliberately leaves to others.

1.1 Purpose

This specification defines how retail automotive dealership systems expose their data and actions to AI agents over the Model Context Protocol (MCP). It establishes a common set of resources, tools, naming conventions, and a security profile so that any conformant agent can work with any conformant server without bespoke, per-vendor integration.

The protocol layer is MCP. This specification is the automotive retail profile of MCP: the agreed-upon resource and tool surface for the dealership.

1.2 Goals

  • Make any conformant dealership server interchangeable from an agent's point of view.
  • Cover the operational core of the dealership: inventory, leads and CRM, deals and desking, service, parts, F&I, and marketing/analytics signals.
  • Keep the surface small, stable, and versioned, so vendors can implement it once and rely on it.
  • Treat security and PII as first-class — automotive data carries real compliance weight.
  • Be implementable on top of existing DMS, CRM, and platform APIs without forcing a re-platform.

1.3 Non-Goals

This specification is the retail / dealership data-and-tool layer. It is explicitly distinct from, and does not attempt to replace:

  • Vehicle and OEM signal standards such as COVESA / VSS (Vehicle Signal Specification). Those describe signals from the vehicle itself; this describes the systems of the dealership.
  • The Model Context Protocol itself. MCP is the transport and capability model; this profile rides on top of it and does not redefine it.
  • Proprietary vendor APIs. A conformant server may be a thin adapter in front of an existing DMS or CRM API. This spec standardizes the agent-facing surface, not the system of record.

Claiming this lane cleanly — the dealership, not the vehicle — is deliberate. It avoids confusion with vehicle-signal efforts and gives implementers an unambiguous target.

1.4 Audience

DMS, CRM, and website/platform vendors implementing a conformant server; AI-agent vendors consuming it; and the dealers and agencies who will ask "do you support MCP, and which version?"

This section is a draft (RFC). Boundaries — especially the line between this profile and vehicle-signal standards — are exactly the kind of thing the council expects to refine with its partners.