list_farmsRetrieve the farms your API key can access, including your role, plan, and holder-data completeness. Use it first to get farm IDs for submissions.
Farms (explotaciones) the API key can see, with the key owner's role in each, the plan and whether the holder data required for official submissions is complete. Call this first to get farm ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are auth-scoped to the calling key and each row carries the key owner's role, plan, and a completeness flag relevant to official submissions — disclosure the annotations cannot express.
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?
Two tight sentences, no filler. The payload contents come first and the operational instruction ('call this first') is placed last where it lands as the takeaway.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing returns — and it does, covering scope, per-farm role, plan, and submission-readiness. Combined with annotations covering safety and idempotency, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.
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?
Zero input parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document and the baseline applies. The description instead characterizes the output shape, which is a useful substitute given there is no output 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?
States a specific verb (list) and resource (farms/explotaciones) and immediately scopes it to what the API key can see. It also enumerates the return payload (role, plan, holder-data completeness), so an agent knows exactly what this returns and how it differs from any other listing tool among the siblings.
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?
'Call this first to get farm ids' gives explicit sequencing guidance — the tool is framed as the entry point whose output feeds other calls. No alternatives or exclusions are named, but none of the sibling tools overlap in this domain, so there is little to exclude.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.