get_paper
One paper with its full outline and purchase/landing URL.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
api-evangelist
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description partially carries the burden. It indicates a read operation returning a single paper, but lacks details on data freshness, rate limits, or what 'full outline' entails. Adequate for a simple get.
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?
Extremely concise single sentence, front-loaded. However, it omits important parameter information that could be added without bloating. Otherwise efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is functional but incomplete. It fails to clarify the slug parameter and the scope of 'full outline'. Sibling tools are numerous, but this description does not ensure correct selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'slug' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description does not explain what a slug is, its format, or how to obtain it. This is a significant gap.
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 clearly states the tool returns one paper with its full outline and URL. It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_papers which likely return multiple results. However, the meaning of 'full outline' is vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage: retrieve a specific paper by slug. No explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like find_papers or get_post. The context is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes with clear descriptions, reducing ambiguity. However, some overlap exists between search tools like 'find_posts' and 'search_api_evangelist', though they target different scopes (stories vs. unified search). Overall, an agent can reasonably differentiate them.
Naming Consistency3/5
The majority of tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., find_areas, get_post), but several use noun_noun or inconsistent prefixes (e.g., api_coverage, company_gaps, insights_adoption). This inconsistency can confuse pattern recognition, though the pattern is still readable.
Tool Count2/5
With 56 tools, the server is overloaded for a typical MCP context. While the domain is broad, the sheer number risks agent confusion and selection errors. Calibration suggests 25+ tools are excessive, and this server far exceeds that threshold.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers a wide range of API governance, search, analysis, and generation tasks. There are no obvious dead ends for navigating the API Evangelist network, though some areas (e.g., direct API creation) are intentionally out of scope. Minor consolidation could improve efficiency.