get_ruleRetrieve the detailed text of a specific rule from the knowledge base by its rule ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rule_id | Yes | The ID of the rule to fetch, e.g. CAT.DARK |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| rule_id | 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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minor behavioral context by promising 'detailed text' as the return content, but does not disclose error/not-found behavior. No contradiction exists.
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?
A single sentence with no filler; the core operation, resource, and identifier are stated immediately. Every word earns its place.
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, idempotent, read-only lookup with one fully documented parameter and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It does not explain what kinds of rules exist or where rule IDs originate, but those are not necessary for correct invocation.
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 single parameter rule_id is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), including an example value 'CAT.DARK'. The description only reinforces that lookup is by rule ID, adding no significant meaning beyond the schema.
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 identifies a specific action ('Retrieve the detailed text'), a specific resource ('a specific rule from the knowledge base'), and the lookup key ('by its rule ID'). It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling getters such as get_dial_state or get_kb_version.
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 usage: when you have a rule ID and need the rule text. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or which sibling tool to prefer for related lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools sort cleanly into register_*, list_*, set_*, and log_* families with clear resource targets. The main ambiguity is between diagnose_shot and diagnose_preview, which are deliberately similar, and between get_dial_state and suggest_next_step, but the descriptions resolve these reasonably well.
Naming is overwhelmingly consistent snake_case verb_noun, such as register_coffee, list_shots, update_shot, and set_active. Minor exceptions like kb_changelog next to get_kb_version and grinder_math break the pattern slightly.
With 34 tools, the surface is well over the 25+ too-many threshold. The resource families are individually clear, but the assistant would be easier to navigate with fewer, more consolidated tools or less KB introspection surface.
The core dialing workflow is well covered: registration, shot logging, diagnosis, dial state, recipes, and maintenance. However, most registered entities such as grinders, machines, waters, scales, and programs have create+list but no update/delete, and recipes have no unlock/delete lifecycle.