get_contestantOne contestant's profile and social metrics, with the season it belongs to. Pass show to scope to a season; otherwise their most recent season is used.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| show | No | Season ID or slug, e.g. "12" or "love-island-usa-season-8". Use list_shows to discover. | |
| contestant | Yes | Contestant ID or slug, e.g. "394" or "amora-cachee". |
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?
While the readOnlyHint annotation covers the safety profile, the description adds behavioral context beyond it by explaining the default season behavior and that the result includes the season it belongs to. This is useful and non-obvious information that the schema does not convey.
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 concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and output, then follows with a clear behavioral note about the optional parameter. Every sentence contributes decision-relevant information.
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 only 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage, a readOnlyHint annotation, and no nested objects or output schema, this description is complete for an agent to correctly call the tool. The schema covers IDs and discovery, while the description covers selection behavior.
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 already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, but the description adds meaning by clarifying that show is optional and controls season scoping. This extra semantic layer helps an agent understand how to select the right season without opening the detailed 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 returns one contestant's profile and social metrics, immediately distinguishing it from siblings like get_cast and get_show. It specifies a singular resource and includes the season association, leaving no ambiguity about what is returned.
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 gives direct guidance on when to pass the optional show parameter versus omit it, noting the fallback to the most recent season. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to call this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.