Skip to main content
Glama

backup.get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get one backup record. GET /v1/organizations/{id}/projects/{project}/backups/{backup_id}?environment={env}.

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": {
      "organization_id": "<organization_id>",
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "environment_id": "<environment_id>",
      "backup_id": "<backup_id>"
    },
    "name": "backup.get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
backup_idYesbackup_id (required)
project_idYesproject_id (required)
environment_idYesenvironment_id (required)
organization_idYesorganization_id (required)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only the REST endpoint shape, which corroborates but does not enrich behavior (no error semantics, no auth/permission notes).

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The URL template is dense but functional; it is not padded with boilerplate.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a four-parameter read-only getter with complete annotations and full schema coverage, most of what an agent needs is present. However, there is no output schema, so the description could have said what the returned backup record includes — that gap is left entirely 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all four identifiers are already documented, and the description only restates their placement in the path and query string (environment as a query param). That routing detail is mildly useful but adds no meaning about formats or valid 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?

"Get one backup record" gives a specific verb (get) and resource (backup record), and the word "one" implicitly separates it from the sibling backup.list. It stops short of naming the sibling tools or stating what a backup record contains.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing (e.g., backup.list for enumeration, backup.restore for acting on a backup). Usage is only inferable from the name and the word "one".

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