Retrieve one batch by ID, including summary, fermentation/bottling dates, estimated targets, measured values, and embedded recipe in metric units.
Read one batch: summary, fermentation/bottling dates, estimated targets (OG, FG, IBU, color), all measured values, and the embedded recipe (target stats + ingredient bill). Units are metric (SG, L, °C).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| batch_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return payload shape and that units are metric (SG, L, °C) – genuinely non-obvious context – but says nothing about permissions, missing-batch behavior, or any embedding/aggregation side effects.
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 starting with the verb and resource, followed by a compact units note. The long parenthetical enumeration is information-dense rather than wasteful, so it stays efficient without being padded.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the enumeration of returned fields (targets, measured values, embedded recipe) supplies the return-value information an agent would otherwise lack. The only real gap is batch_id semantics, which the description leaves entirely to the schema.
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 coverage is 0% and the single required parameter batch_id has no schema description. The description refers only to 'one batch' and never clarifies batch_id's expected format, source (e.g. from find_batches), or whether it is a UUID or human-readable name, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 ('Read one batch') and enumerates exactly what is returned (summary, dates, targets, measured values, embedded recipe). The singular 'one batch' implicitly contrasts with the sibling find_batches, but no sibling is named explicitly, 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: the agent can infer this is the fetch-by-id counterpart to find_batches, but the description never states when to prefer it over find_batches, get_readings, or get_recipe. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.