mcp-itglue

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get IT Glue Flexible Asset

itglue_get_flexible_asset

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a single IT Glue flexible asset by ID with all traits, choosing markdown or JSON output for readable or structured documentation access.

Instructions

Get one flexible asset by ID, including all of its traits.

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": {
      "flexible_asset_id": "<flexible_asset_id>"
    },
    "name": "itglue_get_flexible_asset"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`response_format`	No	Output format: human-readable markdown (default) or structured JSON	markdown
`flexible_asset_id`	Yes	The flexible asset ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`item`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds only 'including all of its traits', which is implicit. No mention of error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs beyond what annotations provide.

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 description is a single clear sentence that front-loads the purpose. There is no waste; every word adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (read by ID, two params), the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete enough. It does not need to detail return format or error states.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond 'by ID', which matches the required parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get one flexible asset by ID, including all of its traits', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_flexible_assets' (for listing) and other get tools by focusing on a single asset retrieval via ID.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_flexible_assets for multiple assets, update_flexible_asset for modifications). It lacks explicit context, exclusions, or mentions of prerequisites.

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