get_entryThe full data of one metal, mineral, ingredient, potion or gem by its id (from search_encyclopedia or list_entries): properties, lore, page url, embed_url.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The entry id, e.g. "iron", "rose_quartz". | |
| kind | Yes | Which catalogue: metal, mineral, ingredient, potion or gem. | |
| lang | No | Language of the texts: en (default), fr, or all for both. |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently lists the output contents (properties, lore, page url, embed_url) and gives no indication of side effects, implying a read-only operation. It does not explicitly state read-only, but the wording is consistent with a safe fetch.
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 a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose, target item types, ID source, and output fields. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
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?
The description provides context by referencing the sibling tools that supply the ID and names the output fields, which helps the agent understand the tool's role. Since there is no output schema, this enumeration of contents is adequate. It could be slightly richer by noting the language options, but that is covered in the parameters.
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?
The schema already provides clear descriptions for all three parameters, giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds contextual meaning by naming the allowed categories (metal, mineral, ingredient, potion, gem) and tying the id to the source tools, though it does not specifically mention the 'lang' parameter beyond the schema.
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 retrieves the full data of a single entry (metal, mineral, ingredient, potion, or gem) by its ID, and explicitly references where the ID comes from (search_encyclopedia or list_entries). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list or search entries.
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?
The description implies when to use it (after obtaining an ID from a search or list) and indirectly contrasts with other tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as for random selection or batch retrieval, though sibling tool names hint at those alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clear and distinct purpose: get_entry and get_track operate on different domains (encyclopedia vs. music), list_albums/list_composers/list_entries/list_facets are distinct list operations, and search_encyclopedia/search_tracks are separate search functions. No overlap or ambiguity.
The majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_entry, list_albums, search_tracks, random_entry), but audio_taxonomy and craft_rules are exceptions, not following the verb_noun structure. This is a minor deviation.
With 12 tools, the server covers both a music database and an encyclopedia/crafting reference without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a clear function, and the count is well within the typical range for a specialized server.
The tool set covers all common read operations: listing, searching, retrieving by ID, random selection, and static reference (taxonomy, rules). For a read-only reference server, this is complete, with no obvious gaps for the described domain.