get_feedingRetrieve a single feeding by UUID with its ingredient snapshot and per-group deliveries. Use it to verify targets, actuals, and group distribution for farm records.
Get a single feeding by its UUID, including its ingredient snapshot (targets and actuals) and per-group deliveries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| farm_id | No | The ID of the farm (optional if a default is set). | |
| feeding_id | Yes | The feeding UUID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint already establishes the safe-read profile, and the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return contents: an ingredient snapshot with targets/actuals and per-group deliveries. This is meaningful behavioral context, especially since there is no output schema.
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 front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource, the key, and the payload with zero 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 simple read tool with no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the returned structure and confirms the UUID key. It leaves only minor gaps such as error behavior for an unknown UUID.
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 both parameters (farm_id and feeding_id) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that lookup is by UUID, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema 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?
States a specific verb (get) and resource (a single feeding), scoped by UUID, plus what the payload contains. The word 'single' implicitly separates it from the sibling list_feedings, though no sibling is named 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?
Usage is implied by the singular lookup semantics, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer list_feedings, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.