get_readings_historyRetrieve a crop’s sensor readings by crop ID for a specified date range, newest to oldest, to review telemetry history and track changes over time.
Lecturas del cultivo en un rango de fechas, de la más reciente a la más antigua.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| crop_id | Yes | Identificador de 24 caracteres hex | |
| to_time | No | ||
| from_time | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and closed-world behavior, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying descending chronological order, but omits pagination/default-limit behavior and what happens when from_time or to_time are omitted.
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 compact sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the resource, date-range scope, and ordering. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward read tool.
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, reducing the description's burden. However, with four parameters and only 25% schema description coverage, the description leaves optional-parameter and pagination behavior underspecified for a history endpoint.
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 description coverage is low at 25%. The description explains the date-range concept, which maps to from_time/to_time, but does not explain crop_id, the limit default, or the semantics of null date bounds, so it leaves significant parameter meaning to 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?
The description clearly states the resource (crop readings) and scope (a date range), and adds the ordering (most recent to oldest). It distinguishes itself implicitly from get_latest_reading, but does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with 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?
The description implies historical retrieval over a date range but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. It does not tell the agent when to prefer get_latest_reading or get_readings_summary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.