Skip to main content
Glama

section

Retrieve a REPORT.md portion by partial, case-insensitive heading, or list all available headings when no name is provided.

Instructions

Return one section of REPORT.md by (partial, case-insensitive) heading, e.g. 'Paternal', 'Marker panel', 'PharmCAT'. With no name, lists the available section headings.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "section"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
report_dirNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses matching semantics (partial, case-insensitive) and the listing fallback, and implies a read-only operation by returning content. It does not say what happens on a non-matching or ambiguous heading, nor how report_dir affects resolution, leaving real gaps for a retrieval tool.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the fallback mode. The examples earn their place by clarifying the fuzzy heading matching.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the heading-matching behavior is covered. The definition is still incomplete for a tool with an unexplained 'report_dir' parameter and no statement of error or ambiguous-match behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'name' parameter well, including partial and case-insensitive matching plus examples, but 'report_dir' is never mentioned, leaving half of the two-parameter surface undocumented anywhere.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Return one section of REPORT.md") and scopes it by heading lookup. The concrete heading examples ('Paternal', 'Marker panel', 'PharmCAT') make it immediately distinguishable from siblings like summary or lookup.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It does give one explicit usage branch: with no name, it lists available section headings, which tells the agent how to discover valid inputs. However, it never contrasts itself with siblings such as summary, lookup, or narrative_prompt, so the agent must infer which tool to reach for when a whole-document or keyed-lookup view is wanted.

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