AgentGid

How to do a task with a library, asset or API

how_to

Read-only

For one catalog entry and the user's task: AgentGid's checked recipe from its hand-written card: the use that fits, code that AgentGid ran or copied from the official docs, how to check it worked, exact versions, mistakes agents make with it, steps only the person can do (account, key, payment), what data leaves the app, the credit line, the price per action as reported, and traps on the vendor's pages aimed at AI agents. Entries without a card say so; then use get_tool / get_asset / get_api.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "item": "<item>"
    },
    "name": "how_to"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`item`	Yes	Entry slug or name, e.g. pikepdf, lucide, squishmoji, elevenlabs
`task`	No	What the user wants to do with it, in plain words (English or Russian)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the content contract (verified code, versions, agent-common mistakes, human-only account/key/payment steps, data egress, credit line, reported price per action, vendor traps aimed at AI agents). It also discloses a failure behavior for cardless entries. It stops short of describing output format or freshness/verification recency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It opens with what the tool does, so it is reasonably front-loaded, but the body is a single ~12-item run-on list that is harder to scan than a short set of clauses. The fallback sentence earns its place; several list items could be grouped.

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?

For a read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives an unusually complete picture of what comes back and what happens when no card exists. It leaves open the response's shape (prose vs structured) and whether recipes can be stale.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters already carry descriptions with slug examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that there is exactly one entry and one task, adding no new meaning about slug format or how `task` phrasing affects the returned recipe.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a concrete resource: a checked recipe (fitting use, runnable code, verification, versions, pitfalls) for one catalog entry plus the user's task. It also distinguishes itself from get_tool / get_asset / get_api by scoping those to entries without a card. The one flaw is the dense run-on enumeration, which blurs the headline purpose.

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?

It states the triggering condition (one catalog entry and a user task) and an explicit fallback: 'Entries without a card say so; then use get_tool / get_asset / get_api.' What is missing is guidance on when to reach for this versus discovery siblings like find_tools or list_recipes.

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

All AgentGid tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?