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, and the description adds context by specifying that the result includes artifact and routing-surface status. This clarifies what the returned registry row contains and reinforces that the operation is non-mutating.
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: core action and scope appear first, followed by the specific status fields returned. There is no filler, duplication of annotations, or unnecessary elaboration.
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, one-parameter, read-only lookup with a full output schema and safety annotations, the description is complete enough. It names what the result contains and identifies the lookup key, so an agent can select and invoke it without further clarification.
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 schema fully documents the only required parameter, 'slug', including an example. The description merely restates that lookup is by slug, adding no semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for 100% schema coverage is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('one guide's registry row'), scoped by slug, and names the status fields included ('artifact + routing-surface status'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_* tools, which operate over collections.
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 phrase 'one guide's registry row by slug' signals that this tool is for a single, slug-identified lookup rather than listing many guides. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.