Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ghl-api-mcp

ghl-api-mcp

by S5-labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

get_document

Retrieve a full documentation file by providing its ID or title, useful for accessing longer implementation guides and runbooks.

Instructions

Retrieve a full documentation file by id or title, useful for longer implementation guides and runbooks.

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_or_title": "<id_or_title>"
    },
    "name": "get_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
max_charsNoMaximum number of document characters to return (default: 12000).
id_or_titleYesDocument id or title, such as 'GHL_OAuth_SSO_Reproduction_Guide'.
whitelabel_domainNoOptional whitelabel API domain or base URL to use when rendering endpoint URLs.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full transparency burden. It portrays a simple retrieval, but omits that max_chars can truncate the document, and does not describe read-only nature or any side effects. This is a gap.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with key information. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain truncation behavior, return format, or provide guidance relative to siblings like get_section. It adequately covers basic purpose but leaves gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all parameters. The description adds little beyond schema, only noting usefulness for long docs. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles semantic load.

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 'Retrieve a full documentation file by id or title', specifying the verb (retrieve) and resource (documentation file). It differentiates from siblings like get_section (partial) and list_docs (listing), so purpose is clear.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description mentions it is 'useful for longer implementation guides and runbooks', providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives like get_section for shorter content, so it lacks exclusions.

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