get_fixtureE84: Get a fixture by its public ID including its raw source and normalized JSON content. Requires project context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fixtureId | Yes | Public ID (GUID) of the fixture to retrieve. |
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?
The description states 'Requires project context,' which is a useful precondition beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. The readOnlyHint is consistent with the 'Get' operation, and no side effects are implied. It could mention behavior when project context is missing, but the annotation covers the main behavioral expectation.
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, focused sentence that names the operation, the target resource, the identifier, and the expected return content. There is no redundant or extraneous information.
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?
The description explains what the tool returns (raw source and normalized JSON content) and notes the project context requirement, which is important because the schema does not include a project parameter. For a simple get-by-ID operation, this is sufficiently complete, though error behavior is not described.
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 single parameter fixtureId is fully described in the schema as the public ID of the fixture to retrieve, and the tool description repeats this. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds little beyond the schema, but it does reinforce the parameter's role in selecting the fixture.
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 identifies the operation as retrieving a fixture by its public ID and specifies the returned content includes raw source and normalized JSON. It distinguishes this from list_fixtures and get_fixture_usage, which are concerned with listing or usage rather than fetching a single fixture's full content.
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 this tool should be used when you have a specific fixtureId and need the fixture's raw and normalized content. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_fixtures or get_fixture_usage, but the 'by its public ID' condition is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
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.
The tools are mostly distinct with clear descriptions. Some pairs like get_header_policies vs get_resolved_headers or get_environment_verification vs get_monitoring_sync_status could be slightly confusing, but the descriptions clarify scope and purpose.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, update_, manage_, etc.). Even the few bare verbs like 'search' and 'set_context' are consistent with the naming scheme.
With 165 tools, the server is extremely heavy. This far exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25+, making it difficult for an agent to navigate and select the right tool efficiently.
The tool surface covers a very broad API lifecycle domain: specs, environments, test cases, monitors, mock servers, security, governance, documentation, and team management. Read and write operations are present across most areas, with no obvious missing core functionality.