Skip to main content
Glama

durable-agent-directory

get_listing

Full structured record for one listing: criteria marks with notes, cost label, evidence and source links, boundaries.

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "get_listing"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesListing slug, e.g. "deadbolt".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add real value by enumerating what the record contains (criteria marks with notes, cost label, evidence and source links, boundaries), but it says nothing about permissions, behavior for an unknown slug, or error/empty results.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the return contents are packed into one colon-delimited list. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence, and terms like 'boundaries' and 'criteria marks' are left unexplained, but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of information, and it does reasonably cover the returned record's content areas. However, it leaves gaps around not-found behavior and what several internal terms ('boundaries', 'criteria marks') actually denote.

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 single required parameter 'slug' already has a full schema description with an example, so coverage is 100% and the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about slug format, lookup semantics, or case sensitivity beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource and scope: 'Full structured record for one listing', which tells an agent this is a single-item detail fetch rather than a list or search. It does not explicitly name how it differs from siblings like search_listings or get_criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it already has a listing slug and needs the complete record. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as search_listings for discovery.

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.

Resources