Skip to main content
Glama

Get Tag Tool

get-tag-tool
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a single tag by its numeric id. Optionally pass include to load the parent project chain.

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": {
      "tag_id": "<tag_id>"
    },
    "name": "get-tag-tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tag_idYesThe numeric id of the tag to fetch.
includeNoOptional comma-separated related resources to include in the response. Whitelisted: `project`, `project.organization`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that `include` pulls in the parent project chain, but says nothing about what happens with invalid ids or missing tags, nor about response size.

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?

Two short sentences, both earning their place: the primary operation first, the optional modifier second. No filler, no restating of the title.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is that the shape of a returned tag is never hinted at, which an agent must discover by calling.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented; baseline is 3. The description does add a small semantic gloss by framing `include` as loading the parent project chain rather than merely listing whitelisted values, but it does not clarify comma-separated syntax or combining both values.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a single tag by its numeric id'), which is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from sibling getters (e.g. get-project-tool, get-prompt-tool) or mention a list-tags counterpart, so it stops short of the top tier.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the lookup semantics — use it when you have a tag id and need the record. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative for retrieving tags another way.

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