get_groupFetch a single cattle or sheep group by UUID, including members, for viewing group composition in farm records.
Get a single group by its UUID, including its members.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| farm_id | No | The ID of the farm (optional if a default is set). | |
| group_id | Yes | The group UUID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations — that members are included in the response — but says nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid UUID or any access constraints.
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 sentence with zero filler; the lookup key and the notable return detail are both front-loaded.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries some return-value burden and does disclose that members come back. That covers the main gap; minor omissions are the optional farm_id scoping behavior, already handled by the schema, and error semantics.
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%, so both group_id and farm_id are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that the lookup is by UUID and adds no format or scoping detail, so the baseline 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 (get), resource (group), lookup key (UUID), and the returned payload (including members). It is clearly distinguishable from list_groups by the word 'single', though it never names a sibling 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 only implied: an agent can infer this is for fetching one known group versus list_groups for enumeration, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.