Retrieve detailed records for a specific animal by its UUID, including health, movement, and birth history from farm data.
Get details about a specific animal by its UUID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| farm_id | No | The ID of the farm (optional if a default is set). | |
| animal_id | Yes | The animal UUID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond that, such as error behavior, return shape, or permission requirements, so it provides no additional transparency value.
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 efficient sentence with no wasted words. The core action, target resource, and selection key are all front-loaded and immediately actionable.
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 simple read-by-ID tool with one required parameter and readOnlyHint annotations, the description is nearly complete. The optional farm_id context is left to the schema, but the overall definition is adequate for an agent to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, with both animal_id and farm_id documented in the input schema. The description reinforces that animal_id is the UUID, which aligns with the schema, but it does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('details about a specific animal') and a precise identifier scope ('by its UUID'). This distinguishes it from broader tools like list_animals and from find_animal_by_identifier, which targets animals by a different identifier type.
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 clearly implies the tool should be used when the agent has an animal UUID and needs that animal's details. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the UUID scoping provides enough context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.