Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CueHQ MCP Server

CueHQ MCP Server

Official
by CueHQSocial
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Get a cue

get_cue
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves one social thread in full by cue ID, including the original post, its location, top replies, and any drafts already written, so you can review or act on a specific cue.

Instructions

One cue in full: the post, where it is, its top replies and any drafts already written for it.

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": "get_cue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe cue id from list_cues.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the payload contents (post, position, top replies, drafts) -- effectively a return-value contract given there is no output schema.

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?

One sentence, no filler, resource and return contents front-loaded. Every clause carries information about what is retrieved.

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?

A read-only single-record fetch with rich annotations and no output schema; the description covers what is returned, which is the main open question. It falls short only on when to prefer this over list_cues or the report tools.

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?

Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a UUID format, pattern and the hint that the id comes from list_cues. The description adds nothing about the id itself, which is fine given the schema does the work; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb implied (fetch/read) plus a concrete resource, and it enumerates exactly what the caller gets back: the post, its location, top replies, and existing drafts. It does not explicitly contrast with list_cues or weekly_report, so sibling differentiation comes only from the schema's reference to list_cues.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description never states when to call this versus list_cues (bulk listing) or weekly_report (aggregate). The only usage cue is in the input schema's 'The cue id from list_cues.' which implies the list-then-fetch flow but is not part of the description.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools