rb209-mcp

rb209_field_type

Fetch the field type description matching a provided field type ID. Use this to identify field types for nutrient management planning.

Instructions

GET /api/Field/FieldType/{fieldTypeId} — Individual field type text filtered from the supplied corresponding field type id.

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": {
      "fieldTypeId": "<fieldTypeId>"
    },
    "name": "rb209_field_type"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fieldTypeId`	Yes	The field type id to filter on.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does explicitly indicate a GET request and a filtering result, implying a read-only operation, but it does not describe error behavior, response format, or any edge cases. This is acceptable for a simple lookup but lacks deeper transparency.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single sentence that front-loads the HTTP endpoint and immediately conveys the core behavior. There is no wasted text, and all information is relevant and efficiently ordered.

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?

The tool is simple (one required integer parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), and the description gives the essential return value ('field type text'). However, without an output schema, more detail about the response format would help the agent know exactly what to expect. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description ('The field type id to filter on'). The tool description only restates this concept ('filtered from the supplied corresponding field type id') without adding meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb (GET) and resource (Field/FieldType) and specifies that it returns an individual field type text for a given id. The word 'Individual' clearly differentiates this from the plural sibling rb209_field_types, so the tool's purpose is 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?

Usage is implied: 'Individual' and the required fieldTypeId suggest this is for fetching one specific field type, not a list. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving some inference to the agent.

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

Deploy Server