get_guideGet one guide's registry row by slug, with its artifact + routing-surface status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The guide slug, e.g. start-a-company. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guide | Yes | ||
| api_version | Yes |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some behavioral context by mentioning that the returned row includes artifact and routing-surface status. It does not cover edge cases such as a missing slug or not-found behavior, but for a simple lookup tool the additional disclosure beyond annotations is reasonable.
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 concise sentence with no filler or repeated title content. The main action, resource, and qualifier are front-loaded, and the artifact/routing-surface status detail earns its place by rounding out the response scope without bloating the text.
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?
This is a low-complexity single-parameter lookup with a full output schema available, so the description does not need to enumerate return fields or error cases. It is adequate for an agent to understand what the tool returns and when to call it. A slightly more explicit pointer to sibling alternatives would make it fully complete, but nothing critical is missing.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter slug is already documented with an example in the schema. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond restating 'by slug', so the baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden and the description does not conflict with it.
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 uses a specific verb ('get'), names a precise resource ('one guide's registry row'), and adds the retrieval key ('by slug'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_guides. It also hints at return scope with 'artifact + routing-surface status', so there is no ambiguity about what this tool does.
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 specific guide registry row when a slug is known, which gives an agent enough context to choose it over list_guides or list_taxonomy. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the singular-scope language provides clear operational context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.