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 the return scope (artifact + routing-surface status) but doesn't discuss behavior like missing-slug handling or response shape; with annotations and an output schema present, no further behavioral disclosure is strictly required.
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 one compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key scoping detail (by slug, with status). Every phrase earns its place with no filler.
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?
Given a single well-documented parameter, a read-only annotation, an output schema, and clear sibling differentiation, the description is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Nothing essential 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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'slug' parameter with an example. The description only restates that lookup is by slug, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.
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'), identifies the exact resource ('one guide's registry row'), and specifies the lookup key ('by slug') and included data (artifact + routing-surface status). It is clearly distinguished from the sibling list_guides by the singular retrieval scope.
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 when to use it: fetch a single guide's registry row by slug. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the singular-vs-list contrast with sibling list_guides is evident enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.