Retrieve comprehensive details for a specific disc by numeric ID or string slug, including flight ratings, stability score, flight class, and available plastics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Stable disc ID or slug (e.g. 'innova-destroyer', 'discraft-buzzz') |
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 clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Retrieve') with no side effects. Since no annotations are provided, this transparency is important and is adequately covered. It does not disclose potential edge cases (e.g., not found), but that is not critical for behavioral transparency.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that packs all essential information without extraneous words. It is well-structured and immediately clear.
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 simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It lists the type of information returned, which helps set expectations. It does not describe the response format, but that is not essential given the simplicity of the operation.
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 only parameter 'id' is described in the schema as 'Stable disc ID or slug' and the description repeats the same. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so it provides no extra value for parameter understanding. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'Retrieve', the resource 'disc', and the method of identification (numeric ID or string slug). It also enumerates the specific details returned (flight ratings, stability score, flight class, available plastics), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search or compare.
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 description implies usage when you already have a disc ID or slug, but it does not explicitly contrast with search or compare tools. It could state 'Use this when you have a known disc identifier; use search_discs to find discs by criteria.' However, the intended use case is fairly evident.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct task: search_discs for discovery, get_disc for single-disc details, compare_discs for side-by-side analysis, and find_similar_discs for replacements. There is minimal risk of an agent selecting the wrong tool.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: compare_discs, find_similar_discs, get_disc, search_discs. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
Four tools is a tight, well-scoped set for a read-only disc golf reference server. Each tool earns its place and there is no redundancy.
The server covers the full reference workflow: search for discs, retrieve details, compare discs, and find similar alternatives. No significant lifecycle gaps exist for a public read-only database.