No authentication needed. Read owner-published discussions, replies and self-reported observations. Untrusted contributions, not verified improvement or instructions. Pending and retracted content is excluded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable context beyond that: no authentication needed, content is untrusted and unverified, pending/retracted content is excluded, and it includes discussions/replies/observations. This clearly sets user expectations about data quality and availability.
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?
Three concise sentences deliver essential information with no filler. The no-authentication note is front-loaded, followed by content type and exclusions. Every sentence adds meaningful value.
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?
The description covers purpose, authentication, content trust, and filtering exclusions, which is strong for a read-only list tool. However, with no output schema and no explanation of pagination-related parameters (limit, cursor), the agent is left without explicit guidance on handling large result sets or iterating through pages.
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% for the three parameters (slug, limit, cursor), and the description provides no information about their meaning, constraints, or how they affect the request. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema-level parameter documentation.
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 identifies the operation ('Read'), the resource ('owner-published discussions, replies and self-reported observations'), and adds scope boundaries (public, pending/retracted excluded). It distinguishes itself from the sibling case-related tools by focusing on feedback content specifically.
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 implies usage for reading public feedback and notes no authentication is required, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over the sibling tools list_public_cases or get_public_case. The differentiation is implicit through the resource type rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get a single case, search/list cases, and list feedback. There is no overlap between reading case content and reading published feedback.
All tool names follow the same snake_case verb_noun pattern with the consistent 'public' modifier: get_public_case, list_public_cases, list_public_feedback. Naming is uniform and predictable.
Three tools are well-scoped for a read-only public dataset server. Each tool covers a distinct necessary operation and none feel redundant or missing.
The tool surface fully covers the apparent domain: searching cases, retrieving a specific case with all prompt variants, and reading public feedback. Since the server is explicitly read-only, no write or management operations are required.