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, covering the safety profile and lowering the burden. The description adds useful context that the row includes artifact and routing-surface status, but it does not disclose behavior for an unknown slug or clarify what 'registry row' means. Consistent with the calibrated 3 for read-only tools with annotation coverage.
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?
A single sentence delivers the verb, resource, lookup key, and response contents with zero filler. The title is equally tight. Every clause earns its place and the core action is front-loaded.
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 one-parameter read-only lookup with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return shape, the description covers the essentials: what is fetched, how it is keyed, and what the row includes. Remaining gaps are minor—domain jargon like 'registry row', 'artifact', and 'routing-surface' is unexplained, and behavior on an unknown slug is unspecified.
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 slug property includes an illustrative example ('start-a-company'), so the schema carries the full parameter documentation. The description's 'by slug' merely reinforces the parameter's role without adding formats, constraints, or defaults, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Begins with a specific verb ('Get'), names the exact resource ('one guide's registry row'), and specifies the lookup key ('by slug'). The qualifier 'with its artifact + routing-surface status' scopes what the response includes, and the singular 'one' clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_guides.
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 'by slug' qualifier and singular 'one guide' imply this is for fetching a single known guide, implicitly contrasting with list_guides, but the description never explicitly states when to use this tool versus an alternative or names the sibling for enumeration. Usage is left to inference rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.