get_card_codeUse for a known approved pet slug when the user needs animated README card Markdown, HTML, or GIF URL. Do not use for simple badges, website iframe embeds, install instructions, or pet discovery; use get_badge_code, get_embed_code, get_install_instructions, or search_pets instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Exact slug of an approved public Codex pet. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionPrevious value: -"Approved Codex pet slug."New value: +"Exact slug of an approved public Codex pet."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds context that the input must be an 'approved' pet slug and that the output includes Markdown, HTML, or GIF URL, which is useful beyond the annotations.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and conditional usage. No wasted words.
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 the simple tool (one parameter, rich annotations, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers input and output types. It could mention the exact format of the returned code but is complete enough for selection and invocation.
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% and the parameter 'slug' is well-described in the schema. The description reinforces the requirement ('known approved pet slug') but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.
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's purpose: retrieving animated README card code (Markdown, HTML, or GIF URL) for a known approved pet slug. It distinguishes itself from siblings by listing specific alternative tools for other use cases.
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 provides explicit guidance on when to use (for a known approved pet slug needing animated README card code) and when not to use (badges, embeds, install instructions, pet discovery), with named alternative tools.
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 with explicit guidance on when to use it and references to alternatives, eliminating ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_ or search_ + specific noun), making the pattern predictable.
7 tools cover the server's read-only retrieval scope perfectly without excess or deficiency.
The tool set fully covers the domain of retrieving approved pet information and understanding the request process, with no gaps for its stated read-only purpose.