get_partLook up a single MapleV part by its catalog id (e.g. 'P-001') or by any Tesla OE part number / variant. Returns full details including grade, fitment, and CAD list price.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes | Catalog id like 'P-001', or an OE part number such as '1519965-SC-B'. |
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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description is not required to restate side-effect behavior. It adds useful transparency about what is returned, including grade, fitment, and CAD list price, which helps set expectations.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no redundant wording. It leads with the tool's main purpose and immediately follows with parameter guidance and output expectations.
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?
Given the simple single-parameter interface and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context by naming the lookup keys and summarizing the returned details. There are no significant gaps for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.
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 schema provides 100% coverage of the single required parameter, and the description enriches it with concrete examples like 'P-001' and '1519965-SC-B'. This fully clarifies acceptable identifier formats.
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 states a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('a single MapleV part'), and clarifies that lookup can be by catalog ID or Tesla OE part number. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like search_parts and list_categories.
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 the tool should be used when a specific known identifier is available, as opposed to broader search or category listing. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the 'single part' and identifier-based lookup language provides clear contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.