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 the operation read-only and non-destructive, so the bar for extra disclosure is lower. The description adds the return-scope detail (artifact + routing-surface status) but does not mention edge behavior such as missing slug or error responses. 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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no filler. Every phrase adds information: the resource, the lookup key, and the included status aspects.
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 single-parameter get-by-slug operation with read-only annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. An agent has everything it needs to select and invoke the tool correctly; no pagination, mutation, or complex prerequisites are relevant.
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 coverage is 100%, and the slug parameter already has a clear description with an example. The tool description merely repeats 'by slug' without adding format, constraints, or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 includes a specific verb ('Get'), a singular resource ('one guide's registry row'), and the lookup key ('by slug'), which also differentiates it from sibling list_guides. Adding 'with its artifact + routing-surface status' clarifies exactly what is returned without ambiguity.
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 that it is for retrieving a single registry row when a slug is known, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with list_guides or state when to prefer one over the other. Usage context is implied rather than stated as explicit when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.