list_commandsRetrieve recent commands for a crop, including status and origin, to monitor execution and troubleshoot pending, failed, or expired operations.
Comandos recientes del cultivo con su estado (PENDING, SENT, EXECUTED, FAILED, EXPIRED) y origen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| crop_id | Yes | Identificador de 24 caracteres hex |
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the command status values and origin, which is useful domain context, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or how recent the results are.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the status enumeration is compact and useful. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool, though it omits a few practical details that a slightly longer definition could have included.
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?
Because an output schema exists and the annotations cover read-only/idempotent behavior, the description does not need to explain return values or safety. It is still incomplete for a list tool: it omits the limit behavior, result ordering, and any usage distinction from sibling tools.
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 only 50%: crop_id is documented in the schema, but limit has no description. The description implies crop scoping but does not explain the limit parameter or otherwise compensate for the undocumented parameter.
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 identifies the resource ('comandos recientes del cultivo') and adds useful detail about status values and origin. It is distinguishable from send_actuator_command and send_bulk_command because it is about recent command history rather than issuing commands, though it never explicitly says 'list'.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use (checking recent command history for a crop) is only implied by the phrase 'comandos recientes'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.