Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

AnalyticsProof

by com.analyticsproof
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get a journey as an editable document

get_journey
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a journey as an editable document (permission: read)

One saved journey of the key's project. steps are in exactly the shape PUT /journeys/{id} accepts (GET, edit, PUT); a wait is shown as an observe with waitAfterMs. stepsInfo[i] (index-aligned) carries the stored action, the consent role, valueStored on type steps (typed text is never returned) and the issues PUT would refuse in that step. editable.put is false when the journey is not a website journey or has no test (unsupported_target; steps is null for Android, iOS and TV journeys) or some step has issues (steps_invalid). A journey without a test starts at the page it was recorded on; edit it in the dashboard. The ETag header is for If-Match. The response is no-store.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_journey"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesJourney id: from GET /journeys or the POST /journeys answer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Added value: +"Journey id: from GET /journeys or the POST /journeys answer."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, but the description adds substantial behavior the annotations do not: index-aligned `stepsInfo`, that typed text is never returned (`valueStored` only), the exact conditions making `editable.put` false with error codes (`unsupported_target`, `steps_invalid`), that `steps` is null for Android/iOS/TV journeys, the `ETag`/`If-Match` contract, and `no-store` caching.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and every subsequent clause carries real information (steps shape, stepsInfo semantics, editable.put conditions, ETag). The density of backticked identifiers makes it slightly hard to scan, but there is essentially no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does thoroughly: `steps`, index-aligned `stepsInfo`, `editable.put` semantics, response headers, and cache behavior, plus the caveat about journeys without a test. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool is missing.

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?

With a single `id` parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains the format (uuid) and provenance (from GET /journeys or POST /journeys). The prose adds no further meaning about the id beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 title and first sentences state a specific verb+resource ('Get a journey as an editable document', 'One saved journey of the key's project') and implicitly distinguish it from list_journeys, patch_journey and replace_journey by framing it as the read half of a GET-edit-PUT round trip.

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 '(GET, edit, PUT)' framing and '`steps` are in exactly the shape PUT /journeys/{id} accepts' clearly signal the use case: fetch when you intend to edit and write back. It also warns that a journey without a test must be edited in the dashboard, but it never explicitly contrasts this with patch_journey/replace_journey or points to list_journeys for discovery.

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

All AnalyticsProof toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources