Find My Farmer's definition of a farming practice (rotational grazing, grass-finished, no-till…): the meaning, the nuance, the questions to ask a farmer, FAQs, and how many farms claim it. Returns the term's stable IRI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | Yes | Practice slug ("rotational-grazing") or id ("rotationalGrazing"). An unknown term returns the full list. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only lookup through the verb 'Find' and describes the return content, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is side-effect-free, does not require auth, or has no rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation support, this is a significant gap.
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, dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('Find My Farmer's definition of a farming practice') and then lists content areas. It is efficient, though the long clause list makes it slightly less crisp than a two-sentence structure might be.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description compensates by listing exactly what the definition includes (meaning, nuance, questions, FAQs, farm count, stable IRI). It does not mention the unknown-term behavior that returns a full list, but that is covered in the input schema, which the agent can access. Overall, the tool's purpose and return value are sufficiently described.
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 coverage for the single 'term' parameter is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by enumerating example practice names (rotational grazing, grass-finished, no-till) that clarify the domain of valid inputs, going beyond the schema's generic slug/id explanation.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Find My Farmer's definition of a farming practice' and enumerates the exact content (meaning, nuance, questions, FAQs, farm count, stable IRI). It is clearly distinct from siblings like 'get_species' or 'best_for' by focusing on practice definitions from My Farmer.
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 gives clear context that this tool is for retrieving definitions of farming practices, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives among the sibling tools, so it stops short of a perfect 5.
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.