recent_transport_suggestionsRetrieve recent transporter and vehicle details from current farm events to suggest trip options, with explicit confirmation for new trips.
Read-only recent transporter and vehicle details derived from current nonvoid events on the farm. Suggestions require explicit confirmation for a new trip; they are not a contacts directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| take | No | ||
| farm_id | 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 real behavioral context beyond that: the data is derived from current nonvoid events (so voided events are excluded) and results are suggestions requiring explicit confirmation rather than authoritative records. It does not cover pagination or refresh/staleness behavior.
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 tightly written sentences with the key scope ('read-only', 'current nonvoid events') front-loaded and the disambiguating caveat second. Every clause earns its place.
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 2-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and safety adequately, but leaves the parameters entirely unexplained and does not describe the shape or ordering of returned suggestions, so an agent cannot predict the result format.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and no descriptions on 'take' or 'farm_id', the description must compensate but says nothing about either parameter. The 100 max on 'take' is only visible in the schema, and there is no hint about default limits or farm scoping.
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-free but concrete resource: recent transporter/vehicle details derived from current nonvoid farm events, and explicitly says it is read-only. It also distinguishes itself from a contacts directory, which helps separate it from sibling lookup tools, though it doesn't name a specific sibling it competes with.
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 usage (suggestions to be confirmed for a new trip) and rules out one misuse (contacts directory), but never states when to call this versus alternatives such as create_traceability_event or animal/location lookups. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.