get_patternLookup a single Pattern-Assist row by stable id. Returns 404-shaped payload when unknown — never fabricates a nearest match.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Pattern id, e.g. devplane-P02. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| pattern | No | ||
| contract | No |
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, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: it returns a 404-shaped payload when the id is unknown and never fabricates a nearest match, which helps an agent understand failure semantics.
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 tight sentences with no filler. The core lookup behavior is front-loaded, and the beneficial failure-mode detail is added in the second sentence without redundancy.
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?
With one well-documented parameter, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context. The 404 behavior and no-fabrication guarantee cover the key edge case an agent would care about when invoking this tool.
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 100% for the single required 'id' parameter, including an example ('devplane-P02'). The description reinforces that the id is stable but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Lookup') and clearly identifies the resource ('a single Pattern-Assist row by stable id'). It also differentiates this tool from siblings like list_patterns and search_patterns by emphasizing single-row, id-based lookup.
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 clearly implies this tool is for retrieving a specific row when the stable id is known, versus listing or searching. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended use context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.