Skip to main content
Glama

Fodda Brand Intelligence

get_node

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the full profile of a specific trend — detailed description, lifecycle stage (emerging/building/mature), signal strength, geographic scope, and all properties. Use when you need deeper detail on a single trend after search_graph returned a summary. Requires node_id from a prior search_graph result.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdYesThe node_id from a prior search_graph result (e.g. '2507.0'). MUST come from the search result's node_id field. Node IDs are NOT sequential integers — do NOT guess or invent IDs like '1', '2', '3'. Do NOT pass the trend name.
userIdNoOptional user identifier for trial usage tracking.
graphIdYesThe graph ID. Use list_graphs to see all options. Examples: 'retail', 'tech', 'food', 'travel', 'beauty', 'sports', 'sic', 'pew', 'ce-design', 'ezra-eeman-wayfinder', 'dhl-ecommerce-trends-2026', 'automotive-color-trends', 'alyson-stevens-macro', 'dentsu-creative-marketing', 'pwc/sxsw-2026-key-insights', 'green-house/thrive-report', 'michaels-2026-creativity-trend-report', 'delta/the-connection-index'

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already disclose readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by naming the exact data categories returned (lifecycle stage, signal strength, geographic scope, properties) and emphasizing the dependency on a prior node_id.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences are sufficient: the first states purpose and contents, the second states when to use it and the required input. No filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple read-only node retrieval tool, the description covers the resource, the expected output contents, the prerequisite input, and the triggering condition. The schema fills in the remaining parameter details.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains graphId, nodeId, and userId. The description reinforces the nodeId provenance rule but does not add material parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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?

The description names an exact action and resource: get the full profile of a specific trend. It further distinguishes itself from search_graph by positioning this as a deeper detail on a single node after a summary result.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when you need deeper detail on a single trend after search_graph returned a summary.' It also specifies a hard prerequisite: the node_id must come from a prior search_graph result.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The tools are largely distinct, with clear roles for discovery, search, evidence, node detail, neighbor exploration, supplemental data, visualization, and account checks. The main overlap risk is between brand_tracker and search_graph for brand-specific queries, but their descriptions steer usage toward different granularities.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a predictable verb_noun structure such as search_graph, get_node, list_graphs, and check_supplemental_status. The only clear outlier is brand_tracker, which is a noun phrase rather than an imperative verb_noun name.

Tool Count5/5

13 tools cover a complete brand-intelligence workflow without feeling bloated: discovery, search, deep dives, evidence retrieval, supplemental context, visualization, account management, and external URL handling. Each tool has a real role in the overall pipeline.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full research journey: list_graphs, search_graph, get_node, get_neighbors, get_evidence, get_supplemental_context, check_supplemental_status, visual generation, and account/capabilities checks. This is a read-only intelligence domain, so the absence of create/update/delete tools is appropriate, not a gap.