Fetch one spec clause by id or anchor across core / js-api / web-api (syntax-numtype, valid-unreachable, modules, streaming-modules, …): title, prose, cross-references, SpecTec formal refs, and rendered URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Clause id or anchor. | |
| spec | No | Which spec (default core). |
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 indicates no side effects. The description adds value by detailing what is returned (title, prose, cross-references, etc.), providing behavioral context beyond the annotation.
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 that front-loads the action and key details. It is slightly long due to examples but remains efficient and structured.
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 partially explains return data (title, prose, etc.) but not the structure. The param count and annotation coverage are good, but the description could be more complete about the output format.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description provides example clause ids and spec options, adding marginal semantic context beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
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 action 'Fetch one spec clause by id or anchor' and specifies the scope across three specs, listing the included data (title, prose, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like 'section_list' which lists sections, and 'instruction_get' which fetches instructions.
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 explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It implies use when fetching a single clause, but no 'when-not' or sibling tool references are given.
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 aspect of WebAssembly: instructions (get/list/search), proposals (list), spec sections (get/list/search), version info, and types. No overlapping purposes.
All tools use consistent snake_case with verb_noun pattern: instruction_get, instruction_list, instruction_search, proposal_list, section_get, section_list, spec_search, spec_version, type_get.
9 tools is well-scoped for a WebAssembly reference server, covering instructions, specs, proposals, types, and metadata without being overwhelming.
Covers core retrieval and search for instructions, specs, proposals, and types. Minor gaps like no dedicated proposal get or type list, but the set is sufficient for typical exploration tasks.