Retrieve comprehensive details for a specific disc by numeric ID or string slug, including flight ratings, stability score, flight class, and available plastics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Stable disc ID or slug (e.g. 'innova-destroyer', 'discraft-buzzz') |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently indicates a read operation ('Retrieve') and discloses the returned data categories, but it does not mention behavior for invalid IDs, missing discs, response format, or potential errors.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action, the resource, the identifier forms, and the key return fields efficiently.
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 one-parameter lookup, the description supplies the identifier semantics and the main return categories, which is sufficient for most invocations. It lacks explicit error or not-found behavior, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.
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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the id parameter with examples. The description adds that the id can be numeric or a slug and clarifies the output fields, but it does not add significant new syntax or format details 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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('a specific disc'), and the two accepted identifier forms ('numeric ID or string slug'). It also lists the data returned, which distinguishes it from siblings like search_discs, compare_discs, and find_similar_discs.
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 fetching a single known disc by ID/slug, which is distinct from sibling tools for searching, comparing, or finding similar discs. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name the alternatives.
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.
Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: searching, retrieving by ID, comparing, and finding alternatives. There is no functional overlap between any pair of tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: search_discs, get_disc, compare_discs, find_similar_discs. The convention is uniform and predictable.
Four tools is a well-scoped set for a disc golf disc reference server. Each tool addresses a distinct core workflow without redundancy or bloat.
The surface covers the full read-only lifecycle for disc data: discovery via search, detail via get, comparison, and replacement recommendations. No obvious operations are missing for the stated domain.