Skip to main content
Glama

get

Retrieve current metadata for Chrome Web Store items including title, description, category, and listing details using the v1.1 API.

Instructions

Get the current metadata of a Chrome Web Store item (v1.1 API). Returns title, description, category, and other listing fields. Note: v1 API is deprecated and will be removed after Oct 15, 2026.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemIdNoExtension item ID (defaults to CWS_ITEM_ID env var)
projectionNoMetadata projection to fetch (defaults to DRAFT)

Implementation Reference

  • Handler implementation for the "get" tool. It resolves the item ID, prepares the URL with the provided projection, makes a GET request, and formats the response.
    server.tool(
      "get",
      "Get the current metadata of a Chrome Web Store item (v1.1 API). Returns title, description, category, and other listing fields. Note: v1 API is deprecated and will be removed after Oct 15, 2026.",
      {
        itemId: z
          .string()
          .optional()
          .describe("Extension item ID (defaults to CWS_ITEM_ID env var)"),
        projection: z
          .enum(["DRAFT", "PUBLISHED"])
          .optional()
          .describe("Metadata projection to fetch (defaults to DRAFT)"),
      },
      async ({ itemId, projection }) => {
        try {
          const id = resolveItemId(itemId);
          const p = projection || "DRAFT";
          const url = `${V1_BASE}/items/${id}?projection=${encodeURIComponent(p)}`;
          const result = await apiCall(url, { method: "GET" });
    
          return formatResponse(result);
        } catch (e: any) {
          return {
            content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: `Error: ${e.message}` }],
            isError: true,
          };
        }
      },
    );
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation ('Get') and mentions the API version and deprecation, which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the itemId is invalid, leaving behavioral gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the purpose and return values, and the second adds critical context about API deprecation. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, and both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without waste.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose, return fields, and API version context, but lacks details on authentication, error cases, or response structure. For a read tool with 2 parameters and no structured output, this is adequate but leaves gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively.

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 already documents both parameters (itemId and projection) thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the implications of 'DRAFT' vs 'PUBLISHED' projections. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get the current metadata of a Chrome Web Store item' with specific details about the API version (v1.1) and what fields are returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'update-metadata' or 'publish' by being a read operation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

The description implies usage context by mentioning the API version and deprecation timeline ('v1 API is deprecated and will be removed after Oct 15, 2026'), which suggests when to be cautious. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'status' or other siblings, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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/mikusnuz/cws-mcp'

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