Retrieve irrigation events by date range, zone, or active status to monitor scheduled, pending, and running watering on OtO Lawn devices.
List irrigation events. start/end are dates (YYYY-MM-DD), end included; default window is 7 days back through 14 days ahead. Set only_active=true to fetch just events that are scheduled, pending or currently executing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| zone_id | No | ||
| only_active | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does deliver real behavioral detail: end is inclusive, the default window is 7 days back through 14 days ahead, and only_active narrows results to scheduled/pending/executing states. It remains silent on read-only guarantees (only implied by 'List'), pagination, and result size, so it is not fully transparent.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose then date semantics then the filter flag. Every clause conveys actionable information with no filler.
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?
For a zero-annotation, no-output-schema read tool, the definition covers defaults, date format, and filter semantics well. The unexplained zone_id parameter is the one meaningful gap; return-shape detail is not required since this is a simple list operation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for three of four parameters: start/end get the YYYY-MM-DD format and inclusivity rule plus default windowing, and only_active gets its precise filter semantics. zone_id is never mentioned anywhere, leaving one parameter completely undefined.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'List irrigation events.' That is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like cancel_event or list_zones. It does not, however, name or contrast itself against any related sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
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 implies usage by documenting the default 7-day-back/14-day-ahead window and the only_active filter, which tells the agent what happens if it omits arguments. It never states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as cancel_event or get_device_status, and there are no explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.