Get character
get_characterRead-only
Get one character record.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| character_id | Yes | Character id. |
Squall Studio
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a read-only operation, and the description 'Get one character record' is consistent with that. No additional behavioral details (e.g., side effects, permissions, error cases) are given, but the annotation suffices for this simple read operation.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no extraneous information. It is highly concise and well-structured for the tool's purpose.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one required parameter) and no output schema, the description sufficiently communicates that the tool retrieves a character record. While it does not specify the response format, that is not essential for a straightforward get operation.
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?
The input schema already provides a description for character_id ('Character id.') and the tool description adds no further elaboration on format, usage, or relationships. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('one character record'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_character_looks or get_project_characters that operate on different aspects or collections.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_character_looks or get_project_characters. The description does not offer any contextual or conditional usage advice.
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.
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes, but some overlap exists between get_episode_shots and list_episode_segments, and get_episode_editor vs get_episode could be confused. Overall, the generate/get/list/update families are reasonably distinguishable.
Naming Consistency4/5
The verb_noun pattern is consistently applied across generate_, get_, list_, and update_ tools. Minor deviations like get_episode_editor (which returns a tree rather than an editor) and get_asset_library (rather than list_assets) prevent a perfect score.
Tool Count2/5
With exactly 25 tools, this exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25+ in the calibration. While the domain is complex, the count feels heavy, especially with many near-duplicate get/list variants.
Completeness2/5
The tool surface is read- and generation-heavy but lacks update operations for characters, episodes, and projects, and has no delete operations at all. This creates notable gaps in lifecycle management, though the existing read/generate coverage is substantial.