get_crop_insightsRetrieve a crop's AI diagnosis, including a 0-100 health score, conclusions, suggested actions, and forecast to guide timely care decisions.
Diagnóstico de SmartPot-AI: índice de salud 0-100, conclusiones, acciones sugeridas y pronóstico.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| crop_id | Yes | Identificador de 24 caracteres hex |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are AI-generated diagnostic content (health index, conclusions, forecast), but says nothing about whether the analysis is cached/stale, how expensive the inference is, or whether it needs fresh readings.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with what the tool is and immediately followed by the returned content. Efficient, though it is terse enough that some operational context is missing.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the single parameter is fully documented. The remaining gap is usage/routing guidance relative to the many sibling read tools, which the description does not address.
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?
There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage (24-char hex identifier), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is acceptable at this coverage level.
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 names the resource (SmartPot-AI diagnostic) and enumerates the concrete payload — health index 0-100, conclusions, suggested actions, forecast — so an agent can tell this is an AI-derived analysis rather than raw readings. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_crop or get_readings_summary.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus get_crop, get_overview, or get_readings_summary, and no prerequisites (e.g., minimum readings needed for a meaningful diagnosis). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.