Look up one MethodologyCritique by critique_id. Returns {matches, total, note?} — array-shaped for parity with equivalences. Matches list contains 0 or 1 element.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| total | Yes | ||
| matches | Yes |
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?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses the exact response shape, including the unusual array-shaped format for parity with equivalences and the fact that matches can contain 0 or 1 element. This is genuinely useful behavioral context not available in the schema.
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?
Two compact sentences with no filler. The primary action and key information are front-loaded, and the return-shape note earns its place because it explains a non-obvious response convention.
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 single-parameter lookup with readOnly annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the lookup key, the response shape, and cardinality, leaving no critical ambiguity for an agent deciding how to call it.
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 input schema only shows a generic string parameter named 'id' with no description, so the description compensates by identifying it as a critique_id. This gives the agent the semantic meaning needed to invoke the tool correctly, though it does not specify additional details like format or where the id comes from.
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 states a specific verb, 'Look up one MethodologyCritique by critique_id,' and clearly identifies the resource and the lookup key. It also distinguishes itself from search siblings by emphasizing that matches contain 0 or 1 element.
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 makes the intended use clear: call this when you have a specific critique_id and expect exactly one result. It does not explicitly name the alternative search tool or state when-not-to-use, but the exact-ID lookup intent is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.