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 context about returning registry-row data with artifact and routing-surface status, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error behavior or rate limits. This is adequate but not rich.
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 primary action and resource, then appends the useful detail about artifact and routing-surface status. Every word contributes value and there is no 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?
This is a simple, single-parameter read tool with an output schema available and annotations covering safety. The description provides enough information for an agent to select and invoke it correctly; no critical calling context 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'slug' parameter, which is already documented with an example. The description only repeats 'by slug' and adds no new parameter-level meaning, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.
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') and a specific resource ('one guide's registry row') and identifies the unique lookup key ('by slug'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling list tools by emphasizing a single item rather than a collection.
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 when to use this tool: when you need a specific guide by slug, including its artifact and routing-surface status. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer list_guides or other siblings, leaving the routing decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.