list_traceability_eventsRetrieve typed traceability events for a farm, excluding voided records unless include_void is true, to review movement, purchase, sale, death, and disposal history.
List typed traceability events on the farm. Voided events are excluded unless include_void is true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| skip | No | ||
| take | No | ||
| farm_id | No | ||
| movement | No | ||
| include_void | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral rule: voided events are filtered out by default and only surfaced via include_void. It says nothing about pagination behavior despite skip/take parameters existing.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the key filtering caveat. No 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?
With 6 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnly hint, the description is too thin for the tool's surface. It omits pagination semantics, the meaning of the kind filter, and what the returned events contain.
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 0% across 6 parameters. The description only clarifies include_void indirectly and says nothing about kind's nine enum values, the movement boolean, skip/take pagination limits, or farm_id. With zero schema documentation, the description leaves most parameters unexplained.
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 clear verb+resource ('List typed traceability events on the farm'), and the phrase 'typed' hints at the kind enum. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular get_traceability_event, but doesn't name siblings 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?
The description explains the void-exclusion default, which is useful usage context, but gives no guidance on when to choose this over list_animals, traceability_report, get_traceability_event, or list_birth_events. Usage is implied rather than routed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.