Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
preset-mcp

preset-mcp

by Evan-Kim2028
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_annotation_layer

Get details of a single annotation layer, including its annotations. Specify layer ID and response mode (compact, standard, or full).

Instructions

Get detail for a single annotation layer including its annotations.

Args: layer_id: The annotation layer ID. response_mode: 'compact', 'standard', or 'full'.

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": {
      "layer_id": "<layer_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_annotation_layer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
layer_idYes
response_modeNostandard

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.2

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'get detail' and lists parameters, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, or has any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation-free tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (3 lines) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It wastes no words, but the parameter list could be integrated more seamlessly.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool, the description covers the main function (get detail + annotations). An output schema exists to document return values. However, it omits context like response_mode semantics or typical use patterns.

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?

The description adds brief meaning for layer_id ('the annotation layer ID') and enumerates response_mode options, which the schema only provides as types/enums without descriptions. However, it does not explain what the different response modes return in terms of detail.

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 clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'annotation layer', including that it returns annotations. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_annotation_layers (list all) and update/delete (modify).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_annotation_layers (for browsing) or get_dashboard (for different resource). The usage context is only implied by the parameters.

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