get_metric_seriesRetrieves interval averages for one crop metric across all crops over a configurable 1–168 hour window, using TimescaleDB aggregates.
Promedios por intervalo de una variable para todos los cultivos (agregados de TimescaleDB).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hours | No | Ventana en horas (1 a 168) | |
| metric | No | temperature |
| 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, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results are aggregated per interval across all crops (no per-crop filtering) via TimescaleDB, but says nothing about result shape, bucket alignment, or empty-window behavior despite an output schema 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the aggregation scope stated first and the TimescaleDB note parenthetical. No waste, though the parenthetical implementation detail is of limited value to an agent.
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 output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, so the description's burden is lighter, but for a tool sitting among many overlapping reading/aggregation siblings it should state the select-this-when condition. The metric enum semantics are left entirely unexplained.
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 50%: 'hours' is documented in the schema (1-168), but 'metric' has only an enum with no explanation. The description hints at 'una variable' and 'por intervalo', mapping loosely to the two parameters, but adds no detail about the metric options or the returned averaging window beyond the schema.
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 specifically that it returns per-interval averages of a single variable aggregated across all crops (TimescaleDB aggregates), which is a clear resource+operation. It implicitly contrasts with per-crop reading tools but never names a sibling to confirm the boundary.
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 instead of get_readings_history, get_readings_summary, or get_latest_reading, all of which sound closely related. The agent must infer from the word 'promedios' that this is the downsampled/aggregated option.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.