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 the operation is read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds that the result includes artifact and routing-surface status. It does not discuss edge cases like missing slugs or response variants, but the safety profile is already covered by annotations.
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 with no filler. It front-loads the core operation and includes the notable additional data fields without redundancy.
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 simple single-parameter lookup tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is complete. An agent knows what the tool does, how to identify the target guide, and what kind of response content to expect.
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 coverage is 100%, and the slug parameter already has a clear type and example. The description only restates that lookup is by slug and does not add substantial semantic detail beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: get one guide's registry row by slug. It also distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by noting it returns artifact and routing-surface status for a single guide.
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 phrase 'one guide' and the requirement of a slug make the intended use clear: retrieve a specific guide rather than enumerate guides. It does not explicitly name list_guides as the alternative, but the usage context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.