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 well covered. The description adds that the result includes artifact and routing-surface status, but it does not disclose behavior for missing slugs or other edge cases. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 that front-loads the action and scope, then adds the two relevant status dimensions. Every clause contributes useful information with no redundancy or 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?
For a one-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the essential information an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on choosing list_guides for enumeration, but that is not critical given the tool's simplicity.
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 only parameter (slug) already has a clear description with an example. The tool description only restates 'by slug' and adds no additional format, constraints, or behavioral nuance beyond the schema, 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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: it retrieves one guide registry row by slug, and it distinguishes this from sibling list tools by narrowing scope to a single item. It also names what is included (artifact + routing-surface status), so there is no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.
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 usage context is implied rather than explicit: 'one guide' and the presence of sibling list tools suggest this is for a single known slug, while list_guides would be used for enumeration. However, the description never states when to prefer this tool over list_guides or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.