Skip to main content
Glama

Get Full Skill

get_full_skill
Read-onlyIdempotent

Load one paid skill's complete instructions from a product. PREMIUM (license).

Typical input {"slug": "inbox-assistant", "skill_name": "Zero Sweep"} returns {"slug": ..., "skill": ..., "instructions": ""}.

Returns one named skill, selected by skill_name. Use when the caller wants one specific paid skill. Not for the free gateway skill, which get_free_skill returns with no plan, and not for every skill at once (get_full_product). 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.
skill_nameYesExact skill name as listed in that product's "skills" array from list_products.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description reinforces these traits and adds the error handling pattern: 'never raises a protocol error — it returns an error object.' This adds context beyond annotations, though the core behavior is already covered.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose, example, usage guidance, error handling, and idempotence note. While every sentence adds value, there is minor redundancy; it could be slightly more concise.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, error behavior, idempotence, and references to sibling tools. It is complete for agent decision-making.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds an example but does not provide new meaning beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions (slug and skill_name).

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 explicitly states 'Load one paid skill's complete instructions from a product' – a specific verb (Load) and resource (paid skill's instructions). It distinguishes from siblings by naming get_free_skill and get_full_product, clarifying what this tool is not for.

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?

The description says 'Use when the caller wants one specific paid skill' and lists alternatives: 'Not for the free gateway skill, which get_free_skill returns... not for every skill at once (get_full_product).' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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