Get the full detail of a single known issue by its ID (e.g. 'KI-109'). Drills into one open problem: status, temperature, owner, linked source and the raw problem statement. Returns a clear not-found with the available IDs if the ID does not match. Read-only, closed world.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The issue ID, e.g. 'KI-109' (case-insensitive). |
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 description goes beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by disclosing the not-found behavior: 'Returns a clear not-found with the available IDs if the ID does not match.' It also confirms 'Read-only, closed world,' matching the annotations and adding semantic clarity. This gives the agent useful expectations for failure cases.
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?
Three sentences deliver everything needed with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, the returned fields are summarized, and the not-found behavior is stated compactly. Every sentence earns its place.
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 single-parameter read-only detail tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it identifies the input, lists the expected fields, and explains the not-found case. There is no pagination, auth, or mutability concern that would require further elaboration.
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 already documents the single id parameter with an example and case-insensitivity, so schema coverage is 100%. The description repeats the 'ID' concept and example but adds no new parameter-level semantics. This aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.
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 and resource: 'Get the full detail of a single known issue by its ID.' It clearly narrows the scope to one issue and even names the kind of fields returned, distinguishing it from the sibling list tool get_known_issues. An agent can tell that this is the detail lookup and not a list or search operation.
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?
'By its ID' and 'Drills into one open problem' establish a clear context: use this when you already know the specific issue identifier and need full detail. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5, but the context is clear enough for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools map cleanly to distinct content types such as profile, projects, issues, diary, experiments, and live-source verification. A few pairs like get_projects/search_projects and get_articles/verify_article touch the same subject matter, but their descriptions clarify the intended action well enough for an agent.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_* for portfolio content, verify_* for external grounding, plus analyze_stack, search_projects, and simulate_architecture. There is no mixing of conventions or vague generic verbs.
18 tools is on the higher end but justified by the portfolio's breadth: content domains, project search/simulation, and open-world verification all have distinct needs. It is slightly heavy but not bloated; each tool has a discernible reason to exist.
The surface covers the full portfolio/interview domain: profile, projects, timeline, articles, repos, packages, issues, engineering history, experiments, principles, and verification. It also includes grounding against live sources, leaving no obvious dead ends for an agent answering questions about the owner.