get_toolReturn the full record for a single tool by its slug, including the page URL, the embeddable widget URL, and whether the tool processes files in the browser or sends them to a server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The tool slug, e.g. "compress-pdf". |
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?
Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description reveals what the response will contain (page URL, widget URL, file processing location). This gives the agent concrete expectations about the output, which is valuable for this 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that packs the key information: action, resource, identifier, and response highlights. No redundant or vague wording.
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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is sufficient. It states what the tool does and what the output includes, which fully covers the agent's need to call it correctly.
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 schema already provides a clear description for 'slug' with length constraints, so the tool description adds no extra meaning. With 100% 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (return the full record) and the resource (a single tool by slug). It also lists what is included in the record, and the sibling tools (list_tools, search_tools) make the singular scope obvious.
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 when to use this tool (when you need a single tool's full record) and contrasts with list_tools by saying 'single tool' and 'full record'. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use them, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.