get_module
Get a single reusable module by uuid, including its revision history and spec.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| module_uuid | Yes | ||
| organization_uuid | Yes |
Air Pipe
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns revision history and spec, but does not mention permissions, side effects, or whether it is read-only. For a read operation, minimal behavioral insight is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the essential purpose. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it could benefit from a slight restructure for better scannability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description hints at return values ('revision history and spec') but doesn't fully describe the response structure. For a simple get operation, this is minimally adequate, but it lacks completeness compared to more detailed descriptions.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate. However, it does not explain the role of 'organization_uuid' or any constraints beyond format. The description adds no semantic value to the parameters beyond what the schema already shows.
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 action ('Get'), the resource ('a single reusable module'), the identifier method ('by uuid'), and the additional content ('including its revision history and spec'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_modules' (listing) and 'get_config' (different resource).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. The context implies it's for fetching a specific module by UUID, but there is no mention of when to prefer 'get_config' or other siblings. The description is adequate but lacks explicit usage context.
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
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, targeting either configs or modules with specific actions (create, get, list, delete, update, deploy, etc.). The only potential overlap is between edit_config and plan_config, but they serve different stages of config management (editing vs. authoring).
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming follows a verb_noun pattern consistently (e.g., create_config, delete_config, list_configs). Minor inconsistency: 'list_configs' uses plural while most others use singular (config). Overall, the pattern is predictable and clear.
Tool Count4/5
With 19 tools, the count is slightly above average but justified by the need to manage two resource types (configs and modules) with full lifecycle operations including deployment, revision handling, and validation. It is well-scoped for a configuration management server.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface is comprehensive, covering CRUD for both configs and modules, plus deployment, undeployment, toggling, revision management, editing via NL, planning, and validation. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.