Fetch one audited case by slug: pricing tiers as published, the paid trigger, what to copy, what NOT to copy, and every evidence source with its URL and grade.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The case slug, e.g. 'tally-forms' (find slugs via search_cases). |
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?
No annotations are provided, but 'Fetch' clearly signals a read-only retrieval, and the description goes further by listing the returned content categories, including 'what NOT to copy' and evidence sources with URL and grade. It doesn't cover error or rate-limit behavior, but for a simple single-record fetch the key behavioral aspects are present.
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?
One dense sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every listed element earns its place by telling the agent what data it will receive.
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?
With only one required parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently outlines the return contents. It could mention the exact response container or error behavior, but the tool is simple enough that nothing critical is missing.
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 documents the single slug parameter, and the description adds a concrete example ('tally-forms') plus a pointer to search_cases for finding valid slugs. That is meaningful value beyond the schema.
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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Fetch one audited case by slug', then enumerates exactly what the case contains (pricing tiers, paid trigger, copy guidance, evidence sources). This distinguishes it from search_cases, which is for discovering slugs.
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 parameter description explicitly says slugs can be found via search_cases, establishing a clear search-then-fetch workflow. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool or how pricing_benchmarks relates, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.
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 role: retrieving one specific case, searching across cases, and computing aggregate pricing benchmarks. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
get_case and search_cases follow a clean verb_noun pattern, while pricing_benchmarks is a noun phrase rather than an action-oriented name. The mixed style is minor and does not hurt readability.
Three tools is a well-scoped count for a focused read-only case-study and benchmark server. Each tool earns its place and there is no redundancy.
The tool surface covers discovery, deep retrieval, and cross-case aggregate analysis, which are the core needs for this domain. Since the underlying data is curated and read-only, the absence of create/update/delete operations is appropriate.