Farm OS MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get all sensor readings' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'all' entails (e.g., pagination, time range). The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 appropriately sized with a clear main sentence followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value without redundancy, though the formatting could be more integrated for better flow.

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 (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but misses behavioral details and usage guidelines, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective tool selection.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds meaning by explaining 'field_id' as 'The unique identifier for the field', which clarifies its purpose. However, it doesn't specify format (e.g., UUID, integer) or constraints, leaving gaps. With one parameter and some added semantics, this meets the baseline for minimal compensation.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'sensor readings' with scope 'for a specific field', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'get_field_info' or 'search_by_crop_type' that might also return sensor data, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 like 'get_field_info' or other sibling tools. It mentions 'specific field' but doesn't clarify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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