Revuo

tools.get

Read-only

Get detailed information about a specific MCP tool, scoped to one product. Pass both the productSlug and the tool name — same-named tools across products are distinct. Response: { tool: { normalizedName, displayName, description, inputSchema, productSlug, productName, serverQualifiedName, isRemoteCapable, accessModel, healthScore, readOnly, destructive, tier, unverified, verifiedAt, position (always 1), rank (always 1.0) } }. Errors: { error: { code: 'not_found', ... } }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Normalized tool name (e.g. 'search_issues', 'send_message')
`productSlug`	Yes	Slug of the product that exposes this tool (e.g. 'linear', 'github')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tool`	No
`error`	No

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the response structure (including fields like normalizedName, displayName, etc., and noting that position and rank are always 1.0) and the error format (with a 'not_found' code). This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It efficiently includes the required parameters, response shape, and error format without extraneous text. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, output schema included), the description is complete. Annotations cover read-only and open-world semantics. The description explains the uniqueness constraint, response fields, and possible error. There are no significant gaps for execution.

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?

The input schema already fully documents both parameters with examples (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining why both parameters are needed: 'Pass both the productSlug and the tool name — same-named tools across products are distinct.' This clarifies the requirement beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific MCP tool, scoped to one product.' It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific MCP tool'. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings by noting that same-named tools across products are distinct and that both productSlug and tool name are required.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when you have a specific productSlug and tool name to retrieve detailed information. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like tools.search or tools.list_by_name, but the requirement for exact identifiers and the mention of distinct tools across products provides sufficient guidance.

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

All Revuo tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The namespace grouping separates products, tools, taxonomy, and rankings cleanly, and each tool's description points to its intended query mode. Some overlap exists between products.search and products.find_by_capability, and between tools.search and tools.find_for_task, but the descriptions are detailed enough that an agent can usually pick correctly. categories.list and directory.overview also overlap, though directory.overview is explicitly marked as the preferred entry-point.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set follows a predictable `resource.action` dotted convention, with all-lowercase names and snake_case within actions. Minor deviations such as `directory.overview`, `tools.changes`, and `mcp.score_server` mix noun actions and verb+object phrases, but the overall pattern remains readable and easy to guess.

Tool Count4/5

14 tools is appropriate for a read-only directory covering products, capabilities, rankings, MCP setup, and tool discovery. The count is slightly high because the search/find family has several close variants, but each variant has a distinct query style and use case.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the domain thoroughly: taxonomy, product search and details, capability lookup, agent-readiness scoring, rankings, MCP setup, tool discovery, and schema-drift detection. Cross-references such as products.get_mcp_setup supplying the hash consumed by tools.changes close the main workflow loops without dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?