get_articleRetrieve a specific article from the RRM Academy research library by type and slug. Use this when you have an exact reference (e.g. from search results) and need full article details including abstract, citation, and metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Article slug identifier | |
| type | Yes | Article type (e.g. article, book, report) |
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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about returning article details with abstract, citation, and metadata, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication or error handling. This is a modest addition, earning a 3.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the second sentence adds useful usage guidance. There is no redundancy or fluff, making it appropriately sized and well 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?
For a simple retrieval tool with two well-documented parameters and strong annotations, the description is sufficient. It hints at the response content (abstract, citation, metadata), though it doesn't specify the exact return format, which is a minor gap but not critical for this tool's simplicity.
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 100%—both parameters already have clear descriptions. The description merely restates 'by type and slug' without adding new semantic details, so the baseline 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 tool retrieves a specific article by type and slug from the RRM Academy research library. It uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'article,' and explicitly notes 'specific article' to distinguish from broad search tools.
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 instructs to use this tool when an exact reference is available (e.g., from search results), providing clear context. It implies the alternative (search) by referencing search results, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it, keeping this at a 4.
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: search finds articles, get_article retrieves a specific one, find_related explores connections, check_facts verifies statistics, and check_guardrails validates editorial standards. There is no meaningful overlap between any two tools.
Four of the five tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (check_facts, check_guardrails, find_related, get_article). 'search' is a single verb that deviates slightly from this pattern, but the naming remains clear and predictable overall.
With exactly 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose as a research library with quality checks. Each tool serves a distinct function and none feel redundant or excessive.
The toolset covers the core workflows: searching the library, retrieving full articles, exploring related research, and validating content against facts and editorial standards. No obvious gaps exist for the stated domain.