advisor_pendingRetrieve farm entries awaiting advisor review or missing mandatory fields, with the list of missing fields for each entry.
Entries of a farm that still need review or lack mandatory fields, with the list of missing fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| farm_id | Yes | Farm id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description does not need to restate safety. It does add value by disclosing what the response contains ('with the list of missing fields'), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or empty-result behavior.
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 tight sentence with the scoping ('of a farm') and result content front-loaded; no filler. It is slightly terse for a definition with no output schema, 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?
For a one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description conveys the core return contract (pending entries plus missing fields). It omits result ordering or pagination, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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% for the single farm_id parameter, so the schema already documents the UUID input. The phrase 'of a farm' loosely reinforces the scoping, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.
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 names the resource ('Entries of a farm') and the precise subset it returns ('still need review or lack mandatory fields'), which is more specific than the bare name advisor_pending. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_entries or entry_history, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: an advisor wanting the review backlog would infer this is the right tool. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer list_entries or entry_history instead, and no prerequisites such as required permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.