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 establish readOnly and non-destructive semantics, so the description does not need to re-state safety. It adds the meaningful detail that the result includes artifact and routing-surface status, but otherwise no behavioral caveats such as missing rows or error cases are disclosed.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the primary operation and lookup key; every phrase contributes, and no redundant schema repetition. Ideal size for a simple one-parameter tool.
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 the single required parameter, existing output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers what the tool is for and what its result contains. No critical usage or behavioral information is missing for correct invocation.
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 only parameter, slug, is fully described in the schema with an example, so the description adds little beyond restating that lookup is 'by slug.' Baseline 3 is appropriate due to 100% schema coverage.
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?
States a direct verb 'Get' with a specific resource 'one guide's registry row' and the lookup key 'slug'; this clearly distinguishes it from list_guides (plural listing) and the other sibling capabilities. The added detail about artifact and routing-surface status makes the operation unambiguous.
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 implies the tool is for single-item lookup by slug but does not explicitly say when to choose it over list_guides or list_taxonomy, nor state exclusions. An agent must infer the 'known slug vs. enumerate all' distinction from the tool name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.