Fetch a specific feed ration by its UUID to view its ingredients in load order and assigned groups.
Get a single feed ration by its UUID, including its ingredients (in load order) and group assignments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| farm_id | No | The ID of the farm (optional if a default is set). | |
| ration_id | Yes | The ration UUID. |
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=true, and the description adds behavioral context by noting that the returned ration includes its ingredients in load order and group assignments. This goes beyond the annotation and helps set expectations about response structure.
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. It front-loads the core operation (get a single ration by UUID) and then adds the most valuable response details without any wasted words.
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?
Given the simple get-by-UUID operation, the schema fully documents parameters, and annotations cover the read-only nature, the description provides the key missing context: what the response will include. No critical information is absent for an agent to select and 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%, so both parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so a baseline score of 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 action ('Get a single feed ration'), the resource ('a feed ration'), and the key identifier ('by its UUID'). It also specifies what the response includes, distinguishing it from list_rations which would return multiple rations.
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 when to use this tool: when you need one specific ration by UUID. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_rations for fetching multiple rations, but the singular scope and UUID requirement provide clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.