Look up one Intervention by intervention_id. Returns {matches, total, note?} — array-shaped for parity with critiques + 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the return shape (`{matches, total, note?}`) and the 0-or-1 match cardinality, which goes beyond the structured annotations.
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 two tightly written sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the return-shape note earns its place by clarifying cardinality and parity with sibling lookup tools.
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 simple single-ID lookup, the description covers the core behavior, return shape, and match cardinality, while the output schema covers field details. The main completeness gap is the parameter-name discrepancy and the absence of any note about the `id` vs `intervention_id` mapping.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It refers to `intervention_id`, but the actual schema property is `id`, creating a potential mismatch that could lead an agent to pass the wrong key. It also does not explain where the ID comes from or its format.
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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('one Intervention') with a clear identifier (`intervention_id`). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling `interventions.search` by framing it as a single-record lookup by ID.
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 the right usage context: use this when you have a specific intervention ID and need exactly one Intervention. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the singular lookup-by-ID language makes the context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.