get_readings_summaryRetrieve minimum, average, and maximum readings for each monitored variable over a configurable recent time window.
Mínimo, promedio y máximo de cada variable en las últimas horas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hours | No | Ventana en horas (1 a 168) | |
| 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 elsewhere. The description adds that output is aggregate statistics over a time window rather than raw samples, which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about aggregation granularity (per sensor? per variable across sensors?) or behavior when no data exists in the window.
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 short sentence with no filler, and the core payload (min/avg/max per variable) is front-loaded. It is terse to the point of being a fragment, but nothing is wasted.
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 shape needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. Still, for a tool whose value depends on the aggregation window and scope, the description never mentions the default 24h window, the 168h maximum, or whether results are per-sensor or per-crop, leaving the agent to rely entirely on structured fields.
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 100%: both crop_id (24-char hex) and hours (1–168, default 24) are documented in the schema. The phrase 'últimas horas' hints that the window is configurable but adds no detail beyond the schema's default and bounds, so baseline 3 applies.
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 fragment identifies the computed statistics (minimum, average, maximum) per variable over a recent time window, which is more informative than the name alone. However, it omits a verb and never distinguishes itself from siblings that also return measurement data, such as get_readings_history or get_metric_series, so an agent must guess which one to call.
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 use this tool versus get_latest_reading, get_readings_history, or get_metric_series. The only implicit context is 'últimas horas', which loosely implies a recent-window aggregate, but no exclusions or prerequisites are given (e.g. whether the crop must have readings).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.