Skip to main content
Glama

get_tool

Read-only

Details for one tool by its exact name from search_tools: description, badges, stars, repo, install or connect instructions, and for remote MCP servers the actual tool list the server exposes (from our live check).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesExact tool name as returned by search_tools

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the returned fields and notes the tool list comes 'from our live check,' signaling freshness/verification behavior for remote MCP servers. It stops short of describing failure behavior for a nonexistent or misspelled name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the field enumeration is dense but each item carries information. Slightly list-heavy but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well by enumerating the fields returned, including the conditional remote-server case. It leaves out error handling for unknown names, which is the remaining gap for a lookup tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already says 'Exact tool name as returned by search_tools,' so the description's mention of the exact name largely repeats the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Details for one tool') plus the exact retrieval key ('by its exact name from search_tools'), and the enumerated payload (description, badges, stars, repo, install/connect instructions, exposed tool list) makes it unmistakable against the sibling search_tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly implies the workflow: obtain a name from search_tools, then call this for the full record. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for browsing or category listing), so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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.