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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists fields, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't address key behaviors like pagination, error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details (e.g., error cases, pagination). This makes it minimally viable but not fully complete for informed use.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'farm_id: The unique identifier for the farm.' Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only specifies type 'string'), this compensates by explaining what the parameter represents. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., numeric ID, UUID) or examples, preventing a perfect 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: 'List all fields for a specific farm.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('fields'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_field_info' (which likely retrieves details for a single field) and 'list_all_farms' (which lists farms, not fields). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_by_crop_type' (which might also involve fields), keeping it from 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 doesn't mention siblings like 'get_field_info' (for detailed info on a single field) or 'search_by_crop_type' (for filtering fields by crop), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context.

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