rb209-mcp

rb209_soil_psc

Retrieve available Phosphorus Status Class (PSC) options for a crop group and phosphorus index, supporting RB209 nutrient planning.

Instructions

GET /api/Soil/SoilPsc/{cropGroupId}/{pIndexId} — Get the list of all available PSC for selected crop group.

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": {
      "cropGroupId": "<cropGroupId>",
      "pIndexId": "<pIndexId>"
    },
    "name": "rb209_soil_psc"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pIndexId`	Yes	The value of pIndexId
`cropGroupId`	Yes	The value of crop group id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The 'GET' prefix and 'Get the list' wording signal a read-only lookup, which is useful because no annotations are provided. However, the description does not disclose response format, pagination, error behavior, or any domain-specific caveats about available PSC values.

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 focused sentence with the endpoint front-loaded and no filler. It is concise and immediately communicates the operation.

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 two-parameter list lookup, the description is mostly adequate, and the endpoint plus schema cover the basic invocation. However, the unexplained 'PSC' acronym and the absence of any output schema or return-value description leave an agent uncertain about the exact shape and meaning of the result.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters are at least present in the schema, but their descriptions are tautological ('The value of pIndexId', 'The value of crop group id'). The tool description adds minimal contextual meaning by tying PSC to a crop group and pIndex, but it does not enrich parameter semantics beyond that.

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 states the action ('Get the list'), the resource ('PSC'), and the selection context ('selected crop group'). It is distinguished from obvious lookup tools by its specific resource name, though 'PSC' is never expanded and no explicit sibling differentiation is given.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no stated prerequisites. The need for cropGroupId and pIndexId is implied by the endpoint and schema, but the description itself does not explain the decision context.

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

Deploy Server