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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds some context about returned status fields, but no significant behavioral traits beyond what annotations and the output schema already convey. No contradiction with annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase earns its place, and the core retrieval action is stated first, with the extra return detail appended efficiently.
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 read-only lookup with one required, fully documented parameter, an output schema present, and rich annotations, the description is complete. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly without needing more detail.
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%, so the schema fully documents the slug parameter. The description's 'by slug' phrase reinforces that the tool retrieves by slug but does not add meaning beyond the schema's example and type.
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: 'Get one guide's registry row by slug,' which is clearly distinct from the sibling listing tools. It also specifies the additional return context ('artifact + routing-surface status'), making the tool's purpose 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?
Usage is implied rather than explicit: 'by slug' signals that this is for retrieving a single known guide, while siblings like list_guides handle enumeration. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.