get_bookGet the full grounded profile for one book/cluster record by slug (from list_books): the record's own argument (contrast-not-summary) plus metadata and cross-links. Same content rendered publicly at performix.app/learn/books/.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Book slug, e.g. aguinis-performance-management. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| book | Yes |
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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful context beyond that: the returned profile is 'grounded', includes the record's own argument, metadata, and cross-links, and is publicly available at a known URL. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two tight, information-dense sentences. The core action and source are front-loaded, followed by a compact summary of the response content and a public URL reference. No wasted words.
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?
For a single-record read tool with one well-documented parameter, an output schema present, and safety annotations already covering read-only behavior, the description provides all necessary context. It even gives the public URL as an additional reference for the same content.
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?
The input schema already fully describes the single 'slug' parameter with an example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by telling the agent that the slug should come from list_books results, which helps the agent know where to find valid values.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Performix book profile by slug'), clearly identifying the input source ('from list_books') and the content of the result (argument, metadata, cross-links). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_books and get_guide, which are collection or other-profile operations.
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 explicitly says the slug comes from list_books, giving an agent clear direction on how to obtain the required parameter. It also notes the same content is public, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_guide or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.