get_plotRetrieve a saved rural land plot and its stored report snapshot to review prior analysis, with a flag showing whether the checks remain current.
One kept plot with its report, as it was when it was kept.
report.current is false when the checks have changed since. Running
analyse_plot again and keeping the result brings it up to date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plot_id | Yes | A plot id from list_plots or save_plot. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description adds real value by disclosing the snapshot semantics and the `report.current` staleness flag with its remedy. It does not cover error behavior for a missing/invalid plot id, keeping it below 5.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the identity of the resource comes first and the staleness caveat second. Slight redundancy in the repeated "kept" phrasing, but every sentence earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return content and does so at a high level (plot plus its report snapshot, plus the `current` flag). The internal shape of the embedded report is left implicit, which is the only notable gap for a one-parameter read tool.
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 100% and the single `plot_id` parameter is already documented with its provenance ("from list_plots or save_plot"). The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ("One kept plot with its report") and qualifies it as a historical snapshot ("as it was when it was kept"), which differentiates it from siblings like get_report, analyse_plot, and update_plot. An agent can tell this is a single-resource read of an immutable snapshot without opening the schema.
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?
Provides clear usage context: use this to see the kept report, and if `report.current` is false, re-run analyse_plot and keep the result. It names the remediation path with the alternative sibling. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g. when to prefer get_report or list_plots), so 4 rather than 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.