Everything held about one certification: issuer and issuer domain, occupations served, exam and renewal requirements, education-or-experience routes, Credential Engine registry identity where held, and the basis and source URL for the claim.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The certification id (the table's unique key) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal useful context about the data provenance ('basis and source URL for the claim') and the conditional nature of registry identity ('where held'), but it does not describe error behavior, missing records, or the exact response shape.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one efficient sentence with a front-loaded subject and a compact list of covered fields. It avoids filler, though the long enumerative style is slightly dense and could be broken up for faster scanning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-id tool with no output schema, the description provides a solid account of what the returned record will contain, including issuer, occupations, requirements, routes, registry identity, and source attribution. It is adequate for an agent to predict the call's value, though minor behavioral details like not-found handling are absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the sole parameter `id` is already described as the table's unique key. The description adds little beyond confirming that this id identifies a single certification, so the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool returns everything known about a single certification, enumerating the specific data domains covered. It is distinguishable from the list-oriented siblings by the 'one certification' framing, though it relies on an implied verb rather than an explicit one.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is for getting a single certification record by id, as opposed to searching or listing certifications. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over search_certifications or related_certifications, so an agent must infer the appropriate selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.