Skip to main content
Glama

Good Earth

Goodearth Planting Window

goodearth_planting_window

When to start seed, when to put it out, and the last day it still finishes.

Heat requirement answers whether a crop CAN finish here. It says nothing about when to start, which is the decision actually made with a seed packet in hand in February. This answers three separate questions:

Start seed indoors — counted back from the day it can go out, for a transplanted crop. Out — the earliest the frost record and the soil allow, whichever is later; a tender crop waits for the last spring frost, a hardy one uses the shoulder before it, a direct sowing waits for the soil, which lags the air by weeks. Latest — the last day a sowing still has enough heat left to beat the first fall frost, which is what decides whether an August succession is worth the seed.

All from this block's own record rather than a zone map. The requirements are yours.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
npubNoRequired. Your Nostr public key (npub1...) for credit billing.
blockYesThe ground to answer for: a block you have saved — its id, its name, one of its aliases, or any part of its name that only one block has (e.g. "Meadow" for "Lower Meadow"). If several match, the error lists them with their ids. Blocks may overlap; each answers for its own ground. Save one with block_save first; geometry travels once, not on every call.
cropsYesThe crops to date, with your own requirements. Each is {"crop": "Tomato", "gdd_target": 1300, "base_temp": 50} plus any of "frost_hardy", "direct_sow", "min_soil_f" (germination soil temperature) and "start_indoors_weeks". Add "succession_days" (3–60) to get the succession schedule: a sowing every that many days from the first day out to the last that still finishes, each with its typical finish date, its margin before the median first frost, and whether it lands after the earliest frost on record.
dpop_tokenNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: dates are derived from the block's own frost/soil record rather than a zone map, and the algorithm for start/out/latest is explained. However, it never explicitly states that the call is read-only or what happens on ambiguous matches, leaving some behavioral traits implicit.

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 sentence is front-loaded and the three questions are formatted as a scannable bullet-like structure. It is longer than strictly necessary, with a few illustrative phrases, but each section earns its place by clarifying hardy vs tender, direct sowing, and succession decisions.

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?

Given the rich input schema, the output schema, and the detailed prose, an agent has enough to understand the model and call the tool correctly. The description covers the core calculation semantics and data source; remaining gaps like explicit read-only status and named sibling alternatives are not fatal.

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 75%, so the schema already documents block and crop parameters well. The description adds conceptual context ('requirements are yours', block record rather than zone map) but does not deepen individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which keeps it at baseline.

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 outcome: it computes when to start seed indoors, when to transplant or direct sow, and the latest date a sowing can still finish. It also distinguishes itself from heat-requirement/can-finish questions, helping an agent tell it apart from related crop tools.

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?

The description explicitly contrasts this tool with 'Heat requirement' and says it answers the practical 'when to start' decision made with a seed packet. It clearly implies when to use this tool, but it does not name a sibling tool such as crop_suitability or gdd_status as the alternative, so it misses the explicit routing of a top score.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.