Search US wholesale plant growers' live availability lists and price a whole plant list. Read-only.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct scopes: price_plant_list handles batch pricing of a full plant list, while search_plants answers individual plant market queries. There is minimal overlap since search_plants also provides prices, but the batch vs. single-query distinction is well described.
Both tools use snake_case with a consistent verb_noun pattern (price_plant_list, search_plants). No deviations or mixed conventions.
With only 2 tools, the set feels thin for a wholesale plant market platform; additional operations like browsing grower catalogs or retrieving grower details are absent. However, for a narrowly focused search-and-pricing API, 2 tools are borderline acceptable.
The core functions of searching plants and pricing a list are covered, and the tool explicitly does not place orders. Minor gaps include no way to browse a grower’s full stock list or access detailed grower information, but these are workaroundable via search_plants.
Price a whole plant list or planting schedule from wholesale growers' live stock lists: each line matched to a grower, size and trade price, with the growers near the job preferred. Returns the priced lines and a link to the priced list on HortOS, which the person opens, checks and sends themselves. This tool does not place an order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job | No | Optional: a name for the job or site. | |
| list | Yes | The plant list as text, one plant per line with quantity, name and pot size, e.g. '40 x Lomandra Tanika 140mm'. | |
| near | No | Optional: the job's suburb, town or postcode, so growers near the job are used. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only cover safety flags (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the description must and does add real behavior: it returns priced lines plus a link to a priced list on HortOS that a human opens, checks and sends themselves, and it explicitly does not place an order. This human-in-the-loop model and the non-mutating-in-practice boundary go well beyond the annotation set, though it says nothing about failure modes when a line cannot be matched to a grower.
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?
Two dense sentences: the first front-loads what is produced and the matching behavior, the second covers the return artifact and the workflow boundary. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so ('the priced lines and a link to the priced list'), plus the human follow-up step and the no-order boundary. Combined with 100% schema coverage and present annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.
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 is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a meaningful nuance beyond the schema by saying growers near the job are 'preferred' rather than required, clarifying that `near` is a soft preference and not a hard filter. It does not add format details beyond the schema's own example.
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 ('price a whole plant list or planting schedule from wholesale growers' live stock lists') and scopes it to per-line matching of grower, size and trade price. It is clearly distinct from the one sibling (search_plants), though it never names that alternative to route the agent explicitly.
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?
It establishes context (a plant list or planting schedule to be costed) and an explicit boundary ('This tool does not place an order'), so the agent knows this is pricing, not procurement. It stops short of naming when to prefer it over search_plants or any prerequisite for a successful run.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search America's live wholesale plant market: which wholesale growers list a plant, in which pot sizes, and from what trade price (USD, ex tax). Use it for "who grows X" or "what does X cost wholesale". Botanical or common names both work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | Optional pot size, e.g. 3G, 15G, 24" Box, Liners or Field Grown. | |
| query | Yes | Plant name, botanical or common, e.g. 'Lomandra Tanika' or 'lilly pilly'. | |
| state | No | Optional state or province code to limit growers, e.g. QLD, NSW, FL. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation with potentially incomplete results. The description adds useful context about the data scope (live market, USD ex tax) but doesn't disclose return format or pagination behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
Three sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, usage examples are given, and the parameter-relevant detail (botanical/common names) is included. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Complete for a search tool with readOnly and openWorld annotations. The description covers what the tool does, what data it returns (growers, pot sizes, prices), and how to use it. The only minor gap is not describing the return format, but with no output schema and a simple search use case, this is acceptable.
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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context about what the query means ('Plant name, botanical or common') and the price format (USD, ex tax), but doesn't add significant syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.
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's purpose: searching America's live wholesale plant market for which growers list a plant, pot sizes, and trade prices. It uses specific verbs ('Search', 'use it for') and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by focusing on plant search rather than price list management.
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 provides clear usage context: 'who grows X' or 'what does X cost wholesale', and notes that botanical or common names both work. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
price_plant_listsearch_plantsSearch Canadian wholesale plant growers' live availability and price a whole plant list. Read-only.
Search Australian wholesale plant growers' live stock lists and price a whole plant list. Read-only.
Search New Zealand wholesale plant growers' live stock lists and price a plant list. Read-only.
Live cannabis clone inventory, seasonal pricing, CA delivery quotes, cultivar genetics. Read-only.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.