Retrieve a specific farm group by its UUID, including all member animals, to view group details or verify membership.
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?
Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to explain safety. The description adds that it includes members, which is useful beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose potential errors (e.g., group not found) or default farm behavior, which could be relevant. Since annotations cover the read-only aspect, a 3 is fair.
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 sentence that front-loads the core function and includes a useful detail about members. No waste.
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 full schema coverage and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the essential purpose. It doesn't explain the return format, but no output schema exists and the tool is straightforward. A minor gap is not specifying behavior when group is missing, but overall sufficient.
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 parameters are fully described in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides (group_id and farm_id are self-explanatory). Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool fetches a single group by UUID and includes members. It is a specific verb+resource, and the sibling list has related tools like list_groups and get_group, but the description distinguishes it as single vs list. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the alternative for listing all groups, which would make it 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 when to use it (when you need a single group's details) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_groups. The context of siblings provides a hint, but the description itself lacks explicit routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.