get_birth_history_settingsRetrieve species gestation and age intervals plus any planned birth windows for a farm, defaulting to the active farm, to plan birth history.
Read producer-configured species gestation/age intervals and zero-to-many planned birth windows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| farm_id | No | Farm UUID; defaults to the active farm. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing what the call returns — producer-configured intervals plus zero-to-many planned birth windows — which is non-obvious for a 'settings' endpoint.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with no filler, front-loading the read action and immediately qualifying the cardinality of the returned windows ('zero-to-many').
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 usefully summarizes the return payload, which is the main thing an agent needs. The only gap is that it doesn't connect itself to the sibling read tool for birth history evidence or mention farm scoping, but the schema covers the latter.
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% and the single farm_id parameter is documented in the schema, including its default to the active farm. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Read') and resource ('birth history settings'), and enumerates the returned content (species gestation/age intervals, planned birth windows). It is clearly distinguishable from the write counterpart set_birth_history_settings and the related get_birth_history_evidence, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.
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?
Usage is implied by the read-only nature of the tool and the existence of set_birth_history_settings as its mutation counterpart, but the description never states when to use this versus get_birth_history_evidence or the set/update tool. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.