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. The description adds that the result includes artifact and routing-surface status, which is useful context, but it does not describe not-found behavior, pagination, or other edge cases. Since annotations carry the main behavioral burden, the modest additional context earns a 3.
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, tightly written sentence that conveys the action, resource, lookup key, and included status fields without waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately understandable.
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 one-parameter read operation, the description is complete. The output schema covers return values, annotations cover safety, and the lone parameter is fully documented. Nothing critical for invoking the tool correctly 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 schema already documents the only parameter, slug, with a clear description and example. The description does not add further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Get'), a specific resource ('one guide's registry row'), and the retrieval key ('by slug'). It clearly contrasts with sibling list_guides, making the singular scope explicit. The added detail about artifact and routing-surface status further specifies what is returned.
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 makes clear this is for fetching a single guide by slug, which differentiates it from sibling list tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus list_guides. The singular 'one' implies the usage context, but no direct exclusion is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.