kilimo-mcp

kalro_varieties

Access KALRO improved crop variety recommendations for Kenyan crops. Specify a crop to get tailored variety suggestions.

Instructions

KALRO improved crop variety recommendations for Kenya. DEMO.

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": {
      "crop": "<crop>"
    },
    "name": "kalro_varieties"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`crop`	Yes
`condition`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.3Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'DEMO', which signals a demo environment, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, or any limitations.

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 sentence, very brief and front-loaded. The phrase 'KALRO improved crop variety recommendations for Kenya' is informative, and the trailing 'DEMO' adds minor context. It is concise but not over-verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain how parameters influence the recommendation output, nor does it provide enough context for an agent to know when to invoke it among the sibling tools. The output schema exists but the description adds little value.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema has two parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what 'crop' or 'condition' mean, how they relate to variety recommendations, or provide any examples. It completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool as providing KALRO improved crop variety recommendations for Kenya. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like crop_calendar and fertilizer_guide. However, it lacks an explicit action verb (e.g., 'get', 'list'), so it's slightly less than a 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It implies use for variety recommendations but does not specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server