get_agent
Get one agent's full configuration (soul/task/tools/skills/knowledge_bases/model/params).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
agent4.io
by io.agent4
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, and 'full configuration' indicates the scope of the return. However, it doesn't disclose behaviors like error handling for missing agents or any access requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the content of the configuration. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with one parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly states what is returned. It doesn't address edge cases like non-existent agents, but that is not critical given the output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single parameter 'name'. The description does not explain what 'name' refers to (agent name vs. ID), adding no value beyond the schema's field name and type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets one agent's full configuration and lists the specific components (soul/task/tools/skills/knowledge_bases/model/params). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_skill or get_knowledge_base and from list_agents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when you need a single agent's complete configuration, contrasting with list_agents for listing. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are mostly distinct by domain and action. A few pairs like add_knowledge_file vs add_knowledge_text or build_knowledge_index vs patch_knowledge_index could cause confusion, but descriptions clearly differentiate them.
Naming Consistency4/5
The vast majority follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_*, list_*, get_*, update_*). A few outliers like tenant_info, usage_stats, and page_context_stats are noun-first, deviating slightly from the otherwise uniform scheme.
Tool Count1/5
With 50 tools, this is a very large surface that exceeds typical well-scoped server sizes. Even for a broad platform management API, the sheer number makes it heavy and potentially overwhelming, matching the '50+' extreme mismatch category.
Completeness2/5
The server covers creation, reading, updating, and listing for most resources but lacks any delete operations (no delete_agent, delete_knowledge_base, delete_skill, delete_share, delete_storyline, delete_page_context). This is a significant gap in lifecycle coverage that will force agents to work around missing functionality.