Skip to main content
Glama

FutureSmart AI Demos

by com.aidemos

get_use_case

Full use-case detail as a JSON+Markdown envelope: step guide, pros/cons, FAQ, tools used (JSON) + the full narrative guide (Markdown, full_md). null if unknown. Pass fields to project to only the keys you need (token-efficient).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesUse-case slug (from list_use_cases).
fieldsNoOptional projection: return ONLY these top-level fields (identity id/name/title/slug/url is always included) to control response size. Available: id, title, slug, url, abstract, read_time, category, audience, personas, tags, tools_used, step_guide, what_to_expect, faq, full_md.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return format (JSON+Markdown), null handling, and projection behavior. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a read-like retrieval tool, this is adequate. The description adds value beyond immediate expectations.

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?

Two sentences: first defines purpose and output format, second provides usage guidance and null case. No extraneous words, front-loaded with key information.

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 complexity (two parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the return format, null handling, and projection option. It is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, providing baseline clarity for both parameters. The description adds the concept of 'token-efficiency' for the 'fields' parameter and notes that identity fields are always included, which goes beyond the schema's enum listing.

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 it returns full use-case detail as a JSON+Markdown envelope, including step guide, pros/cons, FAQ, and tools used. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_use_cases' (which lists) and 'get_tool' (which gets tool details) by specifying it retrieves a single use case with comprehensive content.

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 advises using the 'fields' parameter for token-efficient projection, which provides clear guidance on when to customize the response. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, though the context of retrieving full detail versus listing is implied.

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

All FutureSmart AI Demos toolsInspect
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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct entity or action: list tools enumerate different content types, get tools retrieve specific entities, search finds across the catalogue, compare_tools does head-to-head comparison, and the two cross-reference tools (rankings_for_tool and tools_in_ranking) are inverse operations. No two tools have overlapping purposes.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_*, get_*, compare_tools, search), but 'rankings_for_tool' and 'tools_in_ranking' deviate with a noun_prep_noun pattern. These two are internally consistent with each other and remain readable, so the overall convention is only slightly disrupted.

Tool Count4/5

16 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but still well-scoped for a catalogue covering seven entity types, search, comparison, and cross-references. Each tool has a distinct role and none are redundant, so the count feels justified rather than bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers all major content types with list and get (except categories and toolkits, which only have list endpoints), plus search, comparison, and inverse cross-references. Minor gaps like missing get_toolkit or get_category are workaround-able since list_toolkits and list_categories expose sufficient metadata.

Resources