get_provider_detailsGet the full detail record for one provider by 'id'. Use the 'id' value returned by search_provider.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The provider id returned by search_provider (e.g. 'prov-001'). |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond 'full detail record', so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.
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 concise sentences with the core operation front-loaded and the sourcing instruction in the second sentence; no wasted words.
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 lookup tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description provides the necessary workflow context and is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and already states the id is the provider id returned by search_provider with an example. The description largely repeats this, adding no new parameter meaning.
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?
States a specific verb ('get'), resource ('full detail record for one provider'), and identifier ('id'), clearly distinguishing it from search_provider which presumably lists/finds providers.
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?
Explicitly instructs to use the id returned by search_provider, defining the intended workflow. It does not name exclusions, but the single sibling makes the relationship clear.
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.
search_provider returns a list of matching providers, while get_provider_details returns a single full record by id. The two tools have clearly distinct purposes and are explicitly linked via the returned id.
Both tool names use the same lowercase snake_case verb_noun convention: search_provider and get_provider_details. The verbs clearly indicate the action, and the nouns indicate the scope of the result.
Two tools is minimal and borderline for a provider directory. The pair forms a logical search-then-detail workflow, but the server feels thin compared to a typical well-scoped toolset.
The read-only lookup workflow is covered: search to find providers and get details to retrieve full records. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit list-all or browse-by-specialty operation, but agents can work around them via search.