get_fertilizer_profileGet a structured public fertilizer product profile using the exact slug returned by search_fertilizers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Exact safe slug path returned by the related Atlarium search tool. | |
| language | No | Optional preferred response language: it, en or es. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| tool | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionPrevious value: -"Safe public Atlarium slug path made of one or more path segments."New value: +"Exact safe slug path returned by the related Atlarium search tool."Output schema / properties / generated_atRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "data",
- "generated_at",
- "tool"
-]New value: +[
+ "data",
+ "tool"
+]Input schema / properties / language / descriptionAdded value: +"Optional preferred response language: it, en or es."Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionAdded value: +"Safe public Atlarium slug path made of one or more path segments."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and not open-ended, so the behavioral baseline is well-covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, merely stating it retrieves a 'public' profile. Since the annotations carry the burden, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not contradict and adds a bit of context (public nature) but no further details.
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 a single sentence that perfectly captures the essential purpose and key usage instruction (slug from search_fertilizers) without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and efficiently structured.
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?
Given the low parameter count (2), high schema coverage (100%), comprehensive annotations (covers safety, idempotency, etc.), and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's role. It provides the critical context about slug origin, which compensates for what the schema doesn't capture. It could be more complete by noting any error handling or default behaviors for the language parameter, but it's sufficiently comprehensive for most use cases.
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%, meaning the schema already fully documents both parameters (slug and language) with their constraints, patterns, and descriptions. The description does not add new parameter meaning beyond referencing the slug's origin from 'search_fertilizers', which provides useful context for selecting the correct value but doesn't enhance semantic understanding of the parameters themselves. Thus, the baseline score of 3 is fitting.
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 states the tool retrieves a 'structured public fertilizer product profile' using a specific identifier ('slug'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'search_fertilizers' by linking the slug input to that search tool, making its unique purpose and relationship clear.
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?
The description explicitly specifies that the slug must be the exact one returned by 'search_fertilizers', which provides clear guidance on when and how to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools for different scenarios (e.g., searching vs. retrieving a profile), leaving some implicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.