Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

InfraNest

by io.infranest
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Read one thing found by search

fetch
Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads one item in full by the id search gave it, such as monitor:12 or server:7: its settings, state and a link to its page in the app. A help article (help:) comes back as its text and its link.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "fetch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe id search gave, as kind:number — e.g. monitor:12 — or help:<slug> for a help article.
organization_idNoThe organization to read. Leave it out when the token reaches only one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"The id search gave, as kind:number — e.g. monitor:12."New value: +"The id search gave, as kind:number — e.g. monitor:12 — or help:<slug> for a help article."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds return-content context (settings, state, page link; help articles return text and link), which is useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about failure modes for unknown kinds or ids.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the id contract, followed by the return shape. No redundant or filler wording; the help-article case is handled in a single clause.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so for both entity kinds and help articles. It stops short of covering behavior for malformed or unknown ids, which is the main remaining gap for a generic dispatch-style reader.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the id parameter's description already documents the kind:number and help:<slug> forms, so the description largely repeats the schema. It adds no meaning for organization_id, which the schema handles on its own. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Reads one item in full by the id" names a specific verb and resource, and the examples (monitor:12, server:7, help:<slug>) make clear this is a kind-agnostic reader. It does not explicitly name the kind-specific siblings (get_monitor, get_server) it overlaps with, so an agent must infer the distinction rather than being told.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"by the id search gave it" gives a clear usage context: this is the follow-up call to search results. There are no explicit exclusions or guidance on when to prefer get_monitor/get_server instead, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All InfraNest toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources