Retrieve farm event records for animals or groups, filtering by type (feed, health, movement) with pagination support.
List records (events applied to animals or groups, e.g. feed/health/movement) on the farm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | Records to skip (pagination). | |
| take | No | Max records to return. | |
| type | No | Filter by record type. | |
| farm_id | No | The ID of the farm (optional if a default is set). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint: true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds context about what records are (events) but does not disclose behavioral details like pagination behavior, ordering, or that only records from the current farm are returned. Since it adds some context beyond the annotation, 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 action ('List records') and then adds clarifying context. No wasted words, perfectly concise and informative.
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?
The tool is simple and all parameters are documented in the schema, but the description lacks usage guidance (e.g., when to prefer this over list_groups) and does not mention output format or pagination defaults. Since there is no output schema and many siblings, more context would be helpful, but the core purpose is covered. A 3 reflects the moderate completeness.
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% with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it doesn't elaborate on skip/take semantics or the type filter. Given the high schema coverage, 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?
The description clearly states the action (List) and resource (records), and provides helpful examples of what records are (events applied to animals or groups). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_groups or get_record, but the resource is distinct enough. A clear verb+resource with context, so 4 is appropriate.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_record is for a single record, or that create_record/update_record/delete_record are for mutations. The description only states the purpose, not the selection criteria. This is a gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.