Skip to main content
Glama

get_project_by_slug

Retrieve a WebSim project using the creator's username and project identifier to access specific content from the public API.

Instructions

Get a WebSim project by user and slug

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userYesUsername
slugYesProject slug

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler that validates input with UserSlugSchema, fetches project data via API client, and returns JSON-formatted response.
    handler: async (args) => {
      const { user, slug } = UserSlugSchema.parse(args);
      const result = await apiClient.getProjectBySlug(user, slug);
      return {
        content: [{
          type: "text",
          text: JSON.stringify({
            success: true,
            data: result,
            message: `Successfully retrieved project ${user}/${slug}`
          }, null, 2)
        }]
      };
    }
  • Zod schema used for input validation in the get_project_by_slug handler.
    const UserSlugSchema = z.object({
      user: z.string().describe('Username'),
      slug: z.string().describe('Project slug')
    });
  • server.js:267-298 (registration)
    Tool registration object in the tools array, defining name, description, input schema, and handler reference.
    {
      name: "get_project_by_slug",
      description: "Get a WebSim project by user and slug",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          user: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Username"
          },
          slug: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Project slug"
          }
        },
        required: ["user", "slug"]
      },
      handler: async (args) => {
        const { user, slug } = UserSlugSchema.parse(args);
        const result = await apiClient.getProjectBySlug(user, slug);
        return {
          content: [{
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify({
              success: true,
              data: result,
              message: `Successfully retrieved project ${user}/${slug}`
            }, null, 2)
          }]
        };
      }
    },
  • WebSimAPIClient helper method that performs the HTTP request to retrieve project by user and slug.
    async getProjectBySlug(user, slug) {
      return this.makeRequest(`/api/v1/users/${user}/slugs/${slug}`);
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), implying non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose error conditions, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the project doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain return values or error handling, which are crucial for a retrieval tool, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.

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%, with both parameters ('user' as 'Username' and 'slug' as 'Project slug') documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these are required for lookup, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating further.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a WebSim project'), specifying it's retrieved by user and slug. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_project_by_id' or 'list_user_projects', which would require explicit differentiation for a score of 5.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_project_by_id' and 'list_user_projects', the description lacks any context on prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/gigachadtrey/websimm'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server