Fetch a single farmOS record by UUID using its entity type and bundle, with optional relationship embedding.
Fetch a single record by UUID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Record UUID | |
| bundle | Yes | Bundle, e.g. 'plant' | |
| include | No | Relationships to embed, comma-separated | |
| entity_type | Yes | Entity type, e.g. 'asset' |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and an output schema documents the return shape. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'by UUID'—no notes on missing-record behavior or required scoping.
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 zero waste. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to some of the gaps above rather than being a pure strength.
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?
Annotations and a full output schema cover safety and return values, and the schema covers parameters. However, for a 4-param tool sitting among many query/list siblings, the description leaves usage routing and required scoping unexplained.
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%, so all four parameters (id, bundle, entity_type, include) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the UUID concept and omits the required entity_type/bundle scoping, so it adds little beyond the baseline.
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 (Fetch) and resource (a single record) plus the key identifier (UUID), which distinguishes it from list/query siblings. It doesn't explicitly contrast with query_records or search_assets, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.
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 statement of when to use this versus query_records, search_assets, or list_resource_types. The agent must infer that this is the single-record-by-id path from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.