Farm OS MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool retrieves information, implying it is read-only, but does not cover aspects like authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or data freshness. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient, as it leaves key operational details unspecified.

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?

The description is well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. This efficient use of space earns the highest score.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, which are important for effective tool invocation. This results in an adequate but incomplete overall context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'farm_id' is a 'unique identifier for the farm' and provides an example ('e.g., 'farm_001''), which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the bare schema. However, it does not detail format constraints or validation rules, resulting in an adequate but not comprehensive score.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get information about a specific farm.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('farm'), but does not differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_farm_summary' or 'list_all_farms,' which might provide similar or overlapping information. This omission prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools such as 'get_farm_summary' (which might offer aggregated data) or 'list_all_farms' (which might list multiple farms), leaving the agent without context for tool selection. This lack of comparative information results in a low score.

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