Retrieve a public Glubler's content by owner username and URL slug without requiring authentication.
Get a public Glublers contents by username and slug (no authentication required).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slugName | Yes | The URL slug of the Glubler (e.g. "gaming-news") | |
| username | Yes | The Glubler username of the owner |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that this is a public, unauthenticated read operation, but it does not describe the return shape, error behavior, or what exactly 'contents' includes.
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 one compact sentence with the core action, targeting parameters, and authentication context all front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with two fully documented parameters, the description is minimally viable. However, no output schema exists and the term 'contents' is vague, leaving ambiguity about what the agent can expect in the response.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates 'username and slug' and adds the no-auth context, but adds no deeper semantics about parameter formatting or relationships.
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 states a specific action (get) on a specific resource (public Glubler contents) using username and slug. It distinguishes itself through the 'public' qualifier and 'contents' focus, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_glubler_details.
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 'no authentication required' note gives a clear access context and implies use for public Glublers. However, there are no exclusions or guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools like get_glubler_details or list_my_glublers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.