Deere Ops Center MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

jd_list_guidance_lines

Read-only

Retrieves guidance lines for a specific field in John Deere Operations Center, including IDs, names, types, and optional geometry. Requires organization and field IDs.

Instructions

List the guidance lines stored on one field.

    Returns `guidance_lines`, each with `id`, `erid`, `name`, `type`, `archived` and `uri`
    (the line's own address). With `embed_shapes` true each item also carries the full
    record, including its geometry, under `raw`. Get `org_id` from jd_list_organizations and
    `field_id` from jd_list_fields; the `id` of a line is the `guidance_line_id` for
    jd_get_guidance_line.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`org_id`	Yes	Organization ID from jd_list_organizations.
`status`	No	Filter by line status. Omit for Deere's default.
`field_id`	Yes	Field ID from jd_list_fields.
`embed_shapes`	No	Also return the line geometry (shapes). Larger responses; default false.
`record_filter`	No	Filter by record state. Omit for Deere's default.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare read-only/open-world, so the description carries the rest and does so well: it names the returned fields, explains that embed_shapes adds a full record with geometry under `raw`, and warns that this makes responses larger. It does not mention pagination or result limits, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose in the first sentence, then return shape, then input provenance. Every sentence is functional. Slightly verbose in restating the returned field list, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a five-parameter list tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the essentials: scope, parameter provenance, the sibling to use for single-item fetches, and the opt-in shape embedding. Pagination behavior is the only notable omission, and the output schema may already carry that.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks — that embed_shapes nests the complete record including geometry under a `raw` key on each item. It says nothing about `status` or `record_filter` beyond what the schema already documents ('Omit for Deere's default').

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource with explicit scope: 'List the guidance lines stored on one field.' The scope qualifier ('on one field') and the closing note that a line's `id` is the `guidance_line_id` used by jd_get_guidance_line cleanly separate this collection tool from its singular sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It tells the agent exactly where the two required inputs come from (org_id from jd_list_organizations, field_id from jd_list_fields) and explicitly routes to jd_get_guidance_line for single-record retrieval. There is no explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the list-vs-get split is unambiguous from the chaining note.

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