get_offer
Get one product by id or slug, including the live Stripe checkout URL.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Offer id or slug, e.g. yodmcp-pro or consulting. |
ANAMIZED Desk
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by mentioning the live Stripe checkout URL, but it does not discuss authentication, errors, or side effects. For a simple getter this is adequate though 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one efficient sentence with no redundancy. The core scoping ('one product', 'by id or slug') and the notable URL detail are front-loaded.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential elements: resource, lookup key, and a key return feature. It does not document failure modes, but that is not critical given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides full coverage of the single 'id' parameter, including an example. The description adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema states, 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'one product', the identifier method 'id or slug', and a distinctive result ('including the live Stripe checkout URL'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_offers and checkout_link.
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 clearly states that this tool retrieves a single product by id or slug, so an agent can infer when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives like list_offers for bulk listing, but the one-product scope is unambiguous.
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
C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Several tools cluster around the same action: checkout_link and get_offer both return Stripe checkout URLs, list_offers/list_rack/list_systems/search_catalog overlap as catalog listings, and run_rack/constellation_run/swarm_run all trigger credit-spending cycles. The floor_* family is clear, but too many near-duplicate listing and run endpoints create real misselection risk.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming is consistently snake_case and list_/floor_ prefixes help, but the set mixes verb_noon forms (floor_post, memory_write, run_rack), noun phrases (a2a_card, heartbeat, checkout_link), and bare nouns (discovery, floor_home). Still readable overall, but there is no single predictable naming pattern.
Tool Count2/5
At 29 tools, the desk exceeds the practical tool-count range, and many endpoints are informational or registry variants (discovery, a2a_card, agent_me, heartbeat, status endpoints) that could be consolidated. Even though the platform is broad, the set would be more coherent around 15-20 tools.
Completeness3/5
The surface covers floor posts, offers/payments, compute cycles, memory, wiki, and discovery, so most core workflows are reachable. However, there are noticeable gaps: no delete/edit for floor posts, no memory delete, no agent claim/unregister after register_agent, and no product lifecycle tools. Agents can work around some gaps, but the domain is not fully closed.