send_bulk_commandActivates or deactivates the same actuator type across multiple crops in bulk, returning counts of sent, skipped, and failed commands.
Acciona el mismo tipo de actuador en varios cultivos; devuelve enviados, omitidos y fallidos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| crop_ids | Yes | ||
| actuator_type | Yes | ||
| duration_seconds | No |
| 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 a destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the sent/skipped/failed result breakdown, which hints at partial-failure semantics, but says nothing about permissions, what a 'skipped' crop means, or whether partial application is rolled back.
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; the effect and the return shape are stated in one pass.
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?
For a destructive bulk mutation affecting up to 50 crops, the description is thin. The output schema covers return values and annotations cover the safety profile, but nothing explains duration_seconds behavior, partial-application consequences, or limits, which an agent needs before firing a bulk actuation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does not. It conveys only that one actuator type is applied uniformly, leaving action, crop_ids (max 50, 24-hex format), and especially duration_seconds entirely unexplained in the description.
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 a specific verb and resource: it actuates the same actuator type across multiple crops in one call. The plural scope ('varios cultivos') implicitly distinguishes it from the single-crop send_actuator_command sibling, though it never names that alternative.
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 versus send_actuator_command, no prerequisite or permission notes, and no exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the word 'varios'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.