Fetch one full Agent Card by public trusgentId (same ID used in /t/{id} and /b/{id}). Returns structured profile fields, trustScore, verification, and canonical URLs for humans and machines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trusgentId | Yes | Public AgentID, e.g. TG-S-839201 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / trusgentId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Public Agent ID, e.g. TG-S-839201"New value: +"Public AgentID, e.g. TG-S-839201"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description aligns with them. It adds useful context beyond annotations by naming the return contents (structured profile fields, trustScore, verification, and canonical URLs), which helps the agent know what to expect. It does not describe error/pagination behavior, but that is less critical for a simple single-ID fetch.
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?
Two sentences carry the entire definition with no filler. The fetching purpose is front-loaded, and the return summary follows immediately, making the description scannable and efficient.
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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it tells exactly what identifier to provide and gives a clear idea of the response shape (profile fields, trustScore, verification, canonical URLs). The annotations cover safety, so nothing critical is missing.
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 input schema already documents trusgentId fully, including the type and example (TG-S-839201), so the baseline is 3. The description contributes only a small additional cue by noting the same ID is used in /t/{id} and /b/{id}, but this does not add material new format, validation, or supply details.
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 opens with a concrete verb ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('one full Agent Card'), then specifies the identifying scope ('by public trusgentId') and cross-references the canonical URL endpoints. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like search_agents, get_registry, or verify_agent, even without naming them.
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 wording gives a clear trigger: use this when you need a single complete Agent Card by its public ID. It does not explicitly list sibling alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the scope is clear enough that an agent can select it confidently for one-card fetch operations.
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 are clearly distinct: search, verify, get full profile, get official registry, get merged profile, and get business facade each have a specific role. The only borderline overlap is between get_registry and get_merged_profile, but the descriptions explicitly position one as the preferred enriched read, reducing confusion.
All tool names follow a clean verb_noun snake_case pattern with get_, search_, and verify_ as the leading verbs. There are no mixed naming conventions or vague verbs, making the set highly predictable.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a trust/registry lookup service. Each tool serves a clear step in the discovery-to-verification flow without redundancy or unnecessary bloat.
The surface covers the main lifecycle: search registry, search agents, verify existence, fetch agent details, fetch business facade, fetch raw registry, and fetch a merged profile. A minor gap is the lack of dedicated provenance-specific endpoints beyond get_registry, but this is largely addressable via existing tools.