Weekly planting and harvesting progress by state.
Weekly planting and harvesting progress by state.
Products: algodao, arroz, feijao_1, milho_1, milho_2, soja, trigo.
Args:
produto: Crop name (e.g. "soja", "milho_1")
uf: State abbreviation filter (e.g. "MT", "PR"). Empty = all states.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uf | No | ||
| produto | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful cadence ('weekly') and enumerates valid products, which functions as an inline enum since the schema has none. It omits any statement about read-only semantics, data source, or coverage limits, so the disclosure is only partial.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a products list and per-argument notes. The docstring formatting with indentation is slightly padded, but every element earns its place and nothing is redundant.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and both parameters are documented plus the valid product set. The remaining shortfall is the absence of routing context against near-duplicate safra siblings, which matters given this tool family's complexity.
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 largely does: it names both parameters, gives examples for produto ('soja', 'milho_1') and uf ('MT', 'PR'), and explains that empty uf means all states. The only gap is that it does not resolve the produto/uf interaction or confirm the product list is exhaustive.
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 gives a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Weekly planting and harvesting progress by state.' An agent knows exactly what data this returns. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as estimativa_safra or serie_historica_safra, which likely cover related safra data.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives despite a crowded set of safra-related siblings (estimativa_safra, serie_historica_safra, producao_anual, listar_produtos). The agent must infer routing purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.