Skip to main content
Glama

Get Full Product

get_full_product
Read-onlyIdempotent

Load one product in full: its persona plus every paid skill. PREMIUM (license).

Typical input {"slug": "inbox-assistant"} returns {"slug": ..., "name": ..., "persona": "", "skills": [{"name": ..., "instructions": ...}, ...], "free_skill": {...}}.

Returns persona plus every skill for one product. Use when the caller wants the whole product. Not for a single skill (get_full_skill) and not for a free look, which list_products and get_free_skill provide with no plan. Errors: on invalid, missing, or malformed input this tool never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ""} (for example {"error": "unknown slug ''"}). Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesProduct slug exactly as returned by list_products, e.g. "inbox-assistant".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description goes beyond by explaining error handling behavior: 'this tool never raises a protocol error — it returns an error object with fix instructions.' Also confirms read-only and idempotent nature. Adds concrete behavioral context not in 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 front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. It includes a compact example, explicit usage guidance, and error behavior—all in about 120 words. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 output schema exists, the description appropriately provides a typical return structure without over-explaining. It covers all key aspects: purpose, usage boundaries, error handling, licensing context, and sibling differentiation. The description is fully sufficient for an agent to correctly decide and invoke this tool.

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% and the description provides an example input and output shape, adding real-world context. It also specifies that slug should be 'exactly as returned by list_products', giving the agent a clear source for valid values 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?

The description uses specific verb 'Load one product in full' and clearly identifies the resource: 'its persona plus every paid skill'. It explicitly mentions 'PREMIUM (license)' and distinguishes from siblings by naming get_full_skill, list_products, and get_free_skill.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit when-to-use: 'Use when the caller wants the whole product.' And when-not: 'Not for a single skill (get_full_skill) and not for a free look, which list_products and get_free_skill provide with no plan.' This is direct and references sibling tools.

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

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct task: budget_split for income allocation, tip_split for bill splitting, savings_goal for target saving, etc. There is slight potential confusion between budget_split and tip_split as both involve splitting money, but their inputs and purposes (monthly income vs. a single bill) are clearly differentiated. No two tools have overlapping functionality.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (budget_split, tip_split, savings_goal, list_products, get_free_skill, etc.). The only minor inconsistency is that two tools use 'split' (budget_split, tip_split), which is fine as they refer to different kinds of splitting. Overall, the naming is predictable and clear.

Tool Count5/5

With 9 tools, the count is perfectly scoped for a personal suite covering personal finance (budget_split, tip_split, savings_goal), product browsing (list_products, get_free_skill, get_full_product, get_full_skill), time utilities (countdown_days), and learning (spaced_repetition_plan). Each tool serves a clear purpose without bloat or triviality.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the advertised areas: personal finance budgeting, goal saving, bill splitting, product discovery, countdowns, and spaced repetition. A minor gap is the lack of an update or delete tool, but this is acceptable since the server is primarily read-only and informational. The product tools provide a reasonable lifecycle (list, get free, get full, get skill).

Resources