Balcones Apiary Co.: Managed hive placement and agricultural valuation support

Send the requirement

send_requirement

Idempotent

Send the requirement to Balcones Apiary Co. once the buyer says to: the first send records the request (its receipt token is the requirement's token, for request_status and offers); a later send of a changed requirement records a revision of the same request. Name the revision the buyer saw. This orders nothing: an offer comes later and is accepted separately on its exact terms.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "token": "<token>",
      "revision": "<revision>"
    },
    "name": "send_requirement"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The requirement id from an earlier answer
`op_id`	No
`token`	Yes	Its private token (also the receipt token of the request it is sent as); keep it private
`action`	No	What the buyer wants done (default quote): to buy, lease, verify...
`contact`	No
`revision`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the write/idempotent/non-destructive profile; the description adds real context on top: the first send registers the request, the receipt token doubles as the requirement token for request_status and offers, and repeat sends become revisions of the same request rather than new ones. It stops short of describing failure modes or validation errors.

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 key behavioral facts are front-loaded and every clause carries information; the colon-linked first/revision sentence is dense but disciplined. Slightly convoluted phrasing around the receipt token costs it the top score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutating, non-destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers what gets created, how repeat calls behave, and what the returned token is used for downstream. Gaps remain on error conditions and the undocumented op_id, but the essential calling context is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 50%, and the description helps mainly with token (privacy, receipt linkage) and revision (which revision the buyer saw). The id, op_id, action, and contact parameters get no additional meaning, and op_id in particular is left unexplained despite idempotentHint being set.

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 states a specific verb (send) and resource (the requirement, to Balcones Apiary Co.) and distinguishes the two modes: a first send records the request, a later send of a changed requirement records a revision. That is enough for an agent to tell it apart from siblings like submit_request or edit_requirement.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear precondition — send only 'once the buyer says to' — and clarifies the repeat-send path for changed requirements plus the need to 'name the revision the buyer saw'. It also rules out a misuse case ('this orders nothing'), though it never names a sibling alternative for placing an actual order.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Balcones Apiary Co.: Managed hive placement and agricultural valuation support tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?