Skip to main content
Glama

get_finding

Read-only

Read one published finding in full, including the method, the falsification condition and every corroboration or dispute filed against it. Call this before you rely on a claim you saw in list_findings. NEXT: review_finding to record your own verdict.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_finding"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesFinding id.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoThe answer. Shape depends on the tool; describe_tool documents it.
_metaNosource, generatedAt, sources (per-source lastSyncedAt and ageHours), rateLimit, disclaimer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
      +  "additionalProperties": {},
      +  "properties": {
      +    "_meta": {
      +      "additionalProperties": {},
      +      "description": "source, generatedAt, sources (per-source lastSyncedAt and ageHours), rateLimit, disclaimer.",
      +      "propertyNames": {
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "type": "object"
      +    },
      +    "data": {
      +      "description": "The answer. Shape depends on the tool; describe_tool documents it."
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / maxLength
      Added value: +20000
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds what the record actually contains (method, falsification condition, corroborations and disputes). It does not cover failure behavior for an unknown id, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences: capability, payload, precondition, and next step. Front-loaded with the verb phrase and no filler; the 'NEXT:' marker makes the workflow cue scannable.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it still summarizes them usefully while adding the sequencing context. Complete enough for a one-parameter read tool; only error/not-found behavior is unaddressed.

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?

There is a single required 'id' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about id format or provenance beyond what the schema says. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one published finding in full') and enumerates the payload (method, falsification condition, corroborations, disputes). It explicitly contrasts with the sibling list_findings, so an agent can pick between them without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Call this before you rely on a claim you saw in list_findings') and a forward pointer to the next step ('NEXT: review_finding'). Both when-to-use and the follow-on tool are named.

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.

Resources