Skip to main content
Glama

get_certificate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a single issued certificate by its obfuscated ID to access details such as its public verification code, expiry, score, and status.

Instructions

Fetch one issued certificate, including its public verification code.

    `id` is the obfuscated certificate id, which is what `list_certificates`
    returns - it is NOT the `code`.

    `code` is the certificate's unique public identifier: the string a learner or
    their employer quotes to verify the certificate. Treat it as the answer to "how
    do I prove I completed this", and note that anyone holding it can look the
    certificate up.

    `expires_at` is null for a certificate that does not expire, which is not the
    same as one whose expiry is unknown. `score_as_percent` is null when no score
    was recorded rather than zero - do not report a missing score as a failure.

    `status` reflects the certificate itself, not the enrolment; a revoked or
    expired certificate can belong to a completed course. Use `get_enrollment` for
    the learner's progress.

    Requires the `certificates:read` OAuth scope.
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
codeNo
statusNo
issued_atNo
expires_atNo
score_as_percentNo
Install Server

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only idempotent operation, but the description adds rich behavioral context: anyone holding the `code` can look up the certificate, `expires_at: null` means non-expiring rather than unknown, `score_as_percent: null` means no score rather than zero, and status reflects the certificate rather than enrolment. It also discloses the required `certificates:read` OAuth scope.

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?

The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every subsequent sentence adds a distinct, non-redundant clarification about ids, codes, nulls, status, or scopes. The formatting with inline code identifiers keeps the details scannable without wasting words.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a single-parameter read tool, the description fully covers the required parameter, key output semantics, authentication scope, and relationship to sibling tools. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to re-explain return values, and nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema provides no description for the `id` parameter, so the description carries full responsibility. It explains that `id` is the obfuscated certificate id returned by `list_certificates` and explicitly distinguishes it from the public verification `code`, which is exactly the semantic information an agent needs to populate the required parameter correctly.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one issued certificate, including its public verification code.' It clearly distinguishes the obfuscated certificate `id` from the public `code`, which prevents confusion with `list_certificates` and other certificate-related operations.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly references `list_certificates` as the source of the `id`, and directs the agent to `get_enrollment` when the learner's progress is the goal instead of certificate status. It also clarifies that certificate status is independent of enrolment status, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/CloudSecurityAlliance/csa-skilljar'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server