Get2Great — management and selection science magazine

Server Details

Read-only Get2Great magazine essays on who is good at a job, and the management-tool catalog.

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership by verifying the domain or GitHub account it belongs to. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.

Status: Healthy
Uptime: 100.0% over 21 days
Last Tested: 2026-09-28 20:46
Transport: Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-11-25
URL

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Scored 2026-09-24 22:55 across 6 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clearly distinct resource or action: cohort status, individual articles, article listing, article search, feeds, and management tools. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the same lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern, using get, list, and search consistently. The naming convention is uniform and predictable across the entire set.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for a read-oriented magazine and management-science server. Each tool covers a distinct need without redundancy or unnecessary expansion.

Completeness5/5

For the apparent read-only domain, the set provides full lifecycle coverage: list, search, and retrieve articles; list feeds; list management tools; and query cohort status. Management tool execution is intentionally auth-gated elsewhere, so this is not a gap in the tool surface.

Available Tools

6 tools

get_cohort_statusGet published cohort statusA

Read-only

Inspect

Returns the published filing count for a Get2Great Snowball cohort (default: turnover). A count below the release threshold is withheld — filed is null, below_reporting_threshold is true. Valid verticals: turnover, engineering-ttf, saas-frt.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`vertical`	No	Cohort vertical id. Default turnover — the live Get2Great metric.	turnover

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`filed`	Yes
`adequate`	Yes
`contract`	Yes
`vertical`	Yes
`canonicalUrl`	Yes
`release_threshold`	Yes
`adequacy_threshold`	Yes
`below_reporting_threshold`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful behavioral nuance by explaining that withheld counts are represented as null filed with below_reporting_threshold true. This goes beyond the annotation safety profile.

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 tightly written sentences front-load the main result and default, then add threshold semantics and valid values. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

For a single-optional-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, this description is complete: default, allowed values, and special withheld-case behavior are all covered.

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?

The schema already documents the vertical parameter and its default at 100% coverage; the description adds the list of valid verticals ('turnover, engineering-ttf, saas-frt'), which is useful beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Returns'), resource ('published filing count for a Get2Great Snowball cohort'), and default scope ('turnover'). The valid verticals and threshold behavior make it distinct from sibling feed/magazine tools.

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?

Provides clear context: default vertical, valid verticals, and when counts are withheld. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as list_get2great_feeds, or when not to use it.

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

get_magazine_articleGet a magazine articleA

Read-only

Inspect

Returns one Get2Great magazine essay as structured content: metadata, markdown body, and citations. Use slug how-to-tell-whos-good for the lead essay on telling who is good at the job.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes	Magazine slug from the launch cohort (e.g. how-to-tell-whos-good).

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dek`	Yes
`date`	Yes
`lead`	Yes
`slug`	Yes
`order`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`pattern`	Yes
`contract`	Yes
`citations`	Yes
`bodyMarkdown`	Yes
`canonicalUrl`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the exact output components (metadata, markdown body, citations) and identifying a canonical valid slug, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states what the tool does and what it returns, and the second provides a practical usage example. Both sentences earn their place.

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?

This is a low-complexity, single-parameter tool with a full input schema, an output schema, and annotations covering read-only safety. The description adds a canonical slug example, and sibling tools are available for discovering other slugs. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The schema fully documents the slug parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by connecting a specific slug to its real-world content ('how-to-tell-whos-good' for the lead essay on telling who is good at the job), giving the agent meaningful guidance beyond the schema's example.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Returns one Get2Great magazine essay as structured content' with metadata, markdown body, and citations. The word 'one' distinguishes it from the list and search sibling tools, making its role unambiguous.

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?

The description implies the tool is for retrieving a specific magazine essay by slug, and it provides a concrete example slug for the lead essay. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with list_magazine_articles or search_magazine_articles, so an agent must infer when to choose this over alternatives.

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

list_get2great_feedsList Get2Great feedsA

Read-only

Inspect

List Get2Great's free machine-readable feeds. OpenAPI at https://get2great.com/openapi.json.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	Yes
`feeds`	Yes
`contract`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful context by describing feeds as 'free machine-readable' and providing an OpenAPI link, which helps the agent understand the nature and discoverability of the output. The bar is lower due to strong annotations, and the description adds appropriate value.

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?

The description consists of two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose ('List Get2Great's free machine-readable feeds') and then provide a valuable OpenAPI link. There is no redundant or filler content; every part earns its place.

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 has no parameters, read-only annotations, an output schema, and a link to the full OpenAPI specification, the description is complete. The agent has everything it needs to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional elaboration.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details and simply describes the operation. There is no parameter ambiguity to resolve, and the schema fully covers the empty parameter set.

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 states the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'Get2Great's free machine-readable feeds,' which clearly identifies the tool's function. The resource is distinct from the sibling tools that focus on magazine articles and management tools, so the agent can easily differentiate it.

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?

The description implies this tool should be used when the agent needs to list Get2Great's free machine-readable feeds, which gives some context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to the sibling tools, leaving the usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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

list_magazine_articlesList Get2Great magazine articlesB

Read-only

Inspect

List the launch-cohort magazine essays on selection science and better management. Known slugs (7): how-to-tell-whos-good, the-numbers-moved, structure-is-the-tool, grading-on-vibes, score-before-you-talk, two-thousand-jobs, ….

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	Yes
`articles`	Yes
`contract`	Yes

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral detail: it specifies the 'launch-cohort' subset and provides a preview of known slugs, which hints at the returned content. However, it does not explain the output format or any constraints beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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?

The description is two sentences and purpose is front-loaded. The enumeration of slugs adds a bit of bulk but is informative and not redundant. It does not waste words on generic filler.

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?

The tool has no parameters and an output schema, so those aspects are covered. However, the description lacks explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools, especially search_magazine_articles. It also does not clarify whether the list is exhaustive or paginated, despite the 'Known slugs (7)' suggesting a finite set. A note on when to use this vs. search would complete the picture.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially 100% covered. The description adds value by listing known slugs, which gives a sense of the data scope, but since there are no parameters to explain, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('List'), resource ('magazine essays'), and scope ('launch-cohort' and topic). It distinguishes the tool from generic list operations by narrowing to a specific cohort, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is understandable without ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings, particularly search_magazine_articles or get_magazine_article. The description does not mention filtering, pagination, or the trade-offs between listing all articles vs searching. An agent would have to infer when a full-cohort listing is appropriate.

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

list_management_toolsList management and HR toolsA

Read-only

Inspect

List the Get2Great-lane manager-facing tools (strategy frameworks + management/HR practice). Metadata only — execution endpoints are auth-gated elsewhere.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	Yes
`tools`	Yes
`contract`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating 'Metadata only' and explaining that execution endpoints are auth-gated elsewhere, which clarifies scope and user expectations beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loads the core action and resource, and adds only one clarifying clause about metadata/auth. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only listing tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description fully conveys what the tool returns, what scope it covers, and where execution happens. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively 100% with an empty properties object. There is nothing for the description to add about parameters, so the baseline of 4 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 description names a specific verb (List), a clear resource (Get2Great-lane manager-facing tools), and scopes it with examples (strategy frameworks + management/HR practice). It also distinguishes this tool from sibling magazine/feed tools by targeting management tool metadata rather than articles or feeds.

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 clearly states that this returns metadata only and that execution endpoints are auth-gated elsewhere, so an agent knows not to use this tool for executing tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative for execution, but the context is clear enough.

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

search_magazine_articlesSearch magazine articlesA

Read-only

Inspect

Substring search across magazine title, dek, pattern, and body.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	Yes	Case-insensitive search string, e.g. structured interview.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	Yes
`query`	Yes
`results`	Yes
`contract`	Yes

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the substring matching scope across specific fields, which is useful, but it does not disclose behavior such as result ordering, limit, or how 'substring' interacts with the case-insensitive q parameter.

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?

One sentence with no filler. The action ('substring search') and the searched fields are both present and immediately understandable.

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 single-parameter read-only search with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is largely sufficient. It could be slightly more complete by explaining what 'dek' means or by explicitly distinguishing itself from list/get siblings, but nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so q is already documented as a case-insensitive search string. The description adds value by specifying that q is matched as a substring across title, dek, pattern, and body, which goes beyond the schema's generic example.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('substring search') and resource with scope ('across magazine title, dek, pattern, and body'), making it clear this is a search operation rather than a list or get. The field list differentiates it from sibling tools like list_magazine_articles.

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?

The description implies the tool is for searching within specific magazine fields, but it does not explicitly say when to use it over get_magazine_article or list_magazine_articles. No alternatives or exclusions are named, so usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

1 tool updateSep 24, 2026
- Removedget_membership_offer
1 tool updateSep 19, 2026
- Addedget_cohort_status
1 tool updateSep 9, 2026
- Addedget_membership_offer

1 tool updateSep 8, 2026

Changedlist_get2great_feeds1 field changed

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "contract": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "count": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "feeds": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "auth": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "mcpTool": {
+            "anyOf": [
+              {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              {
+                "type": "null"
+              }
+            ]
+          },
+          "method": {
+            "const": "GET",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "path": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "rest": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "summary": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "id",
+          "method",
+          "path",
+          "summary",
+          "mcpTool",
+          "rest",
+          "auth"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "contract",
+    "count",
+    "feeds"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

5 tool updatesSep 8, 2026
- First observedget_magazine_article
- First observedlist_get2great_feeds
- First observedlist_magazine_articles
- First observedlist_management_tools
- First observedsearch_magazine_articles

Related MCP Connectors

salesleader-desk A
guide.salesleader
Read-only Sales Leader Guide desk: writers roster and magazine pieces. Public, no authentication.
Open Data
41
Built with Jon — Hidden Profit Tools A
com.builtwithjon
Read-only tools for finding where a small business leaks deals, time, and cash.
CRM Finance Project Management
21
engineerpro-library A
com.aiengineerprofessional
Read-only EngineerPro engineering library (118 book profiles) and software-engineering tools.
Documentation Access Developer Tools Education & Learning Tools
71
One AI Guide A
com.oneaiguide
Read-only approved AI tools, public stacks, guides, and evidence-aware comparisons.
AI & Machine Learning Documentation Access
71

Related MCP Servers

slowread-mcp
Search Note Taking
Papa-Panda
F
license
Not graded
quality
Not graded
maintenance
Enables AI agents to search, browse, and cite articles from a curated reading list through read-only tools for substring search, recent listing, full article retrieval, and theme summaries.
Updated 23 days ago (2026-09-06 05:20 UTC)
-
claude-wilder-mcp
Research & Data Open Data
claudewilder
A
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
Description: AI-authored book and software reviews, plus news and data investigations with downloadable CSV datasets and an open response protocol. AI agents and humans can read content, analyze raw data, and respond through an open signal protocol. 9 tools, no auth.
Updated 6 months ago (2026-04-04 16:24 UTC)
9
MIT
jobscan-mcp
Search Open Data
aminafara123
A
license
Not graded
quality
B
maintenance
Enables AI clients to read and query a daily job-scan dataset via four read-only tools, including searching job postings, viewing the latest report, and checking market statistics.
Updated 9 hours ago (2026-09-28 12:09 UTC)
MIT
mundigital
Search
mundizzle
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Exposes a public, read-only professional profile with tools to search resume evidence, fetch curated links, and generate career briefs for LLM agents.
Updated 3 days ago (2026-09-25 17:17 UTC)
MIT

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

Need Help?