Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
references

references

by sameeeeeeep
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

references_get

Fetch full details for a suggested design reference by ID to inspect its source and context before saving or adapting it.

Instructions

Full detail of one reference by id (from references_suggest).

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": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "references_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does make clear this is a read that returns 'full detail' rather than a mutation, which is useful. It says nothing about behavior on an unknown id (error vs empty), permissions, or return shape, so key behavioral traits remain undisclosed.

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?

A single short sentence with the key selection detail front-loaded and no wasted clauses. Brevity here borders on under-specification rather than padding.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a one-parameter read with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what 'full detail' contains and what happens on a bad id. Neither is covered, so an agent cannot anticipate the response or failure mode.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single 'id' parameter has no type or format documentation, so the description must compensate. It adds useful provenance ('from references_suggest') but gives no id format, example, or validation hints, leaving the only parameter thinly specified.

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?

States a specific verb ('Full detail of one reference') and the lookup key ('by id'), so the resource and operation are unambiguous. It also names the sibling that produces the id, which helps separate it from shortlist/pick, though it does not explicitly contrast its output with references_shortlist.

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 phrase 'from references_suggest' implies the intended workflow (suggest → get) and gives the agent a hint about when this tool applies. However, it never states exclusions or how it differs from references_shortlist or references_pick, so the choice among siblings is still partly inferred.

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