Skip to main content
Glama

Get one strain in full

get_strain
Read-onlyIdempotent

One strain in full: genetics, cannabinoid ranges, terpenes, flavours, lineage, products made from it, FAQs. Example: {"slug":"gelato"}

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "get_strain"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesPage slug.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
faqsYesThe page's own FAQs, at most five; an answer is marked AI-assisted when the page labels it so
kindYes
nameYes
slugYes
brandNo
clinicNo
strainNo
pharmacyNo
descriptionYes
descriptionAiAssistedYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / slug / description
      Previous value: -"The page slug from a find_* tool or search_directory, e.g. \"green-leaf-clinic\"."New value: +"Page slug."
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds only the payload shape and a sample argument, but says nothing about not-found behavior, rate limits, or whether the response is cached/large.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence listing the returned sections plus a compact example — no filler, every element earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the section enumeration gives the agent a good sense of payload weight. Only the failure mode for an invalid/nonexistent slug is unaddressed.

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% with the slug pattern and length constraints documented, so the schema carries most of the load. The example {"slug":"gelato"} adds a small concrete hint about expected slug format but nothing beyond that.

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?

States a specific retrieval of a single strain and enumerates the content sections (genetics, cannabinoids, terpenes, flavours, lineage, products, FAQs), which makes it clearly the detail-fetch counterpart to find_strains without naming that sibling.

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?

'One strain in full' implies usage (fetch detail for a known slug) versus searching, but it never explicitly says when to use this instead of find_strains or what to do if the slug is unknown.

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.