Skip to main content
Glama

get_my_document_review

Read the content-review report for one of your own documents. Returns spam verdict, novelty, grounding, similar documents. Basic-tier documents return a condensed summary; upgrade to full for detailed aspects.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
run_idNoOptional. The active methodist run_id (as returned by the methodist diagnose / get_current_dose door). Pass it whenever you call this tool while working inside a run, so the call is attributed to that run for the §8 usage crosscheck — attribution is run-anchored, so it stays correct even if your access token refreshes mid-run. Must be YOUR run: a run_id owned by a different principal, or a non-existent run_id, is rejected.
documentIdYesCore document UUID (same id returned by submit_document.core_document_id)

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses return fields and tier differences but does not mention permissions, rate limits, or side effects. Partial transparency.

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 succinct sentences: first covers purpose and return values, second adds tier nuance. No waste, front-loaded with essential info.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return values (spam verdict, novelty, etc.) and tier behavior. With 2 params and simple return, it is adequately complete. Lacks only behavioral details like read-only confirmation.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value: documentId is linked to submit_document.core_document_id, run_id has detailed attribution context. Provides 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?

Clearly states 'Read the content-review report for one of your own documents' – a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like get_document, get_document_status, and get_my_documents, which serve different purposes.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implies ownership ('for one of your own documents') and mentions tier-dependent behavior, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. Lacks guidance relative to other tools.

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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear distinct purposes, but some overlap exists between explore_topic and methodist_explore_topic, and between find_related and find_related_claims. Descriptions generally differentiate them well.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with methodist_ prefix for research workflow tools, though 'paginate' and 'methodist' (without underscore) are minor deviations.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is too many for a single server's scope, exceeding the 25+ threshold. The server combines two major workflows (literature search and research process guidance), which would be better split.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of operations: multiple search modes, document submission and versioning, topic exploration, evidence checking, methodology search, and research guidance. Minor gaps include lack of document deletion or metadata update without new version.