rb209-mcp

rb209_arable_potato_variety

Retrieve a specific potato variety by ID for arable crops. Use the returned data to support nutrient management planning.

Instructions

GET /api/Arable/PotatoVariety/{potatoVarietyId} — Individual potato variety - filtered by potato variety id (only required for arable potato crops).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "potatoVarietyId": "<potatoVarietyId>"
    },
    "name": "rb209_arable_potato_variety"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`potatoVarietyId`	Yes	The potato variety id to filter on.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only restates the GET endpoint and the ID filter; it does not disclose response shape, cardinality beyond 'Individual', error behavior, or any side effects. The GET method is implicit but never explained as read-only.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the endpoint and purpose. It is efficient, though 'potato variety' is repeated and the parenthetical is slightly awkward.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter GET look-up, the description is mostly adequate, but with no output schema it should say more about what the response contains. The crop-context note is useful, yet the absence of annotations and return-value information leaves an agent with limited guidance beyond the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already documents potatoVarietyId with 100% coverage, and the description adds no new parameter detail beyond identifying it as the filter. The 'only required for arable potato crops' note is contextual rather than parameter-specific.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the operation as fetching an individual potato variety filtered by potatoVarietyId, and the singular wording distinguishes it from the plural listing siblings in the tool set. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives, but the resource and filter are unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives one contextual condition — this look-up is only required for arable potato crops — but does not explain when to choose this tool over rb209_arable_potato_varieties or rb209_arable_potato_varieties_by_group, nor when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server