apex_get_cardRead one Apex component card plus its verification report. Public card contract only; raw source and source packages are never returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| card_id | Yes | ||
| include_verification | No |
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 readOnlyHint annotation already flags this as a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful context by disclosing that raw source and source packages are never returned and that only the public card contract is available, which is behavior beyond what annotations alone convey.
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, perfectly front-loaded with the primary action and object, followed by a crucial constraint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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 read tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential contract: one card plus verification report, public contract only, no raw source. It omits error behavior and the conditional nature of the verification report, but overall it is enough for an agent to judge expected results.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fails to explain the include_verification parameter and even implies the verification report is always returned, contradicting the toggleable schema default. card_id is inferable from the tool name and description, but the boolean parameter is not adequately addressed.
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 tool reads exactly one Apex component card and its verification report, specifying the resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from the sibling apex_query_cards by emphasizing 'one' versus listing, and sets expectations with the public contract limitation.
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 clearly implies use for retrieving a single card by ID, especially when compared to the sibling apex_query_cards for broader queries. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of full guidance.
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 have clearly distinct purposes, and descriptions provide sufficient boundaries. Some run_* analytics tools (e.g., deflated_sharpe vs empyrical_metrics) could be conceptually confused, but their specific inputs and outputs minimize ambiguity.
All tools share the apex_ prefix, and the verb_noun pattern is consistent (get, query, run, submit). The 'agent_' subgroup within run tools introduces a minor irregularity, but it remains readily comprehensible.
With 24 tools, the server is on the heavy side, falling into the 16-25 range. Many run_* tools are similar in nature (pure calculations), but each appears to serve a specific purpose, so the count is borderline rather than excessive.
The server name implies a card store, yet the tool surface only supports reading and querying cards, with no create, update, or delete operations. This is a significant gap that prevents full lifecycle management, though the analytics side is fairly comprehensive.