get_mcp_serverFull catalog entry for one MCP server by slug: description, author, install command, repo, supported clients, current probe verdict, static repo-freshness signal for local servers, and related servers in the same categories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Catalog slug, e.g. 'filesystem' or 'github'. |
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. The description adds context about return fields (probe verdict, freshness signal) but does not disclose behavioral traits like caching, latency, or rate limits. No contradictions.
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 sentence listing many items, which is information-dense but not excessively wordy. Could be slightly improved with line breaks, but overall 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?
Given no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates return fields (description, author, install command, etc.). It lacks details on error handling or edge cases, but for a simple lookup tool it is fairly complete.
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 covers the sole parameter 'slug' with a good example. The description mentions 'by slug' but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 tool retrieves a full catalog entry for one MCP server by slug, listing specific return fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_mcp_servers that return lists or other tools with different data.
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 have a specific slug and want detailed info, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or context for selection are provided.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: catalog stats, individual server entry, history, status, categories, schema drift, incidents, and search. No overlap in functionality.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, search_) using snake_case, making it predictable for agents.
With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for a monitoring/catalog service—neither too sparse nor bloated, each tool adds clear value.
Covers core monitoring lifecycle (stats, server details, status, history, incidents, search). Slight gap: no direct 'list all servers' endpoint, but search can approximate it.