get_latest_readingRetrieves the current sensor readings for a specified crop, including temperature, humidity, light, pH, TDS, pressure, and substrate moisture.
Última lectura: temperatura, humedad, luz, pH, TDS, presión y humedad del sustrato.
| 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 safety and repeat-call behavior are covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — not whether a crop with no readings errors or returns empty, nor how fresh the 'latest' reading may be.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though efficiency here partly reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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 the enumerated metrics in the description are largely redundant with structured data. Combined with complete annotations, the definition is minimally sufficient, but it omits behavioral details (empty-state handling, staleness of 'latest') that an agent would want before calling.
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 one parameter and 100% schema description coverage (crop_id documents the 24-char hex format), the schema carries the full burden and baseline 3 applies. The description adds no meaning about crop_id or its scoping effect on the result.
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 restates the title ('Última lectura') and enumerates the sensor metrics returned (temperatura, humedad, luz, pH, TDS, presión, humedad del sustrato). This tells an agent it retrieves the most recent reading and roughly what fields come back, but it never uses a verb and gives no explicit contrast with siblings like get_readings_history 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_readings_history, get_readings_summary, or get_metric_series. The word 'última' hints at recency, but no condition, prerequisite, or exclusion is spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.