get_magazine_pieceReturn one full juxtaposition piece: the question, each writer's section body, and the Editor's weaving coda.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Magazine piece slug from list_magazine_pieces. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| editor | Yes | ||
| format | Yes | ||
| question | Yes | ||
| sections | Yes | ||
| generated | Yes | ||
| editorCoda | No | ||
| api_version | Yes | ||
| writerSlugs | Yes | ||
| canonicalUrl | 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, covering the safety profile. The description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee: it returns the full piece with named sections rather than a summary or list, with no implied side effects.
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 sentence with the action and object front-loaded, followed by a colon-delimited specification of the return contents. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information.
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?
With only one required parameter, safety annotations present, and an output schema available, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and where the slug comes from. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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%; the slug parameter is documented as 'Magazine piece slug from list_magazine_pieces.' The description adds no additional parameter nuance, so the baseline score of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('one full juxtaposition piece'), and enumerates its contents: the question, each writer's section body, and the Editor's weaving coda. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools and get_writer.
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 full' plus the schema's 'Magazine piece slug from list_magazine_pieces' makes the retrieval context clear: use this when you need a single complete piece after listing. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the contrast with the sibling list tools is evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.