get_robotFull catalog record for one robot by slug: description, specs, SDKs, use cases, pricing and links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Robot slug as returned by search_robots (e.g. 'unitree-g1'). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It accurately describes the return content but does not explicitly state read-only nature, absence of side effects, or error handling. Adequate for a simple 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, informative sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned. Could mention result format but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already describing the slug parameter and providing an example. The description reinforces its source but adds minimal new meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves a full catalog record for one robot by slug, listing specific details (description, specs, SDKs, use cases, pricing, links). It distinguishes from siblings like search_robots (list) and compare_robots (comparison).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use after search_robots by referencing slug from that tool. Sibling tools are listed, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
All five tools have distinct purposes: comparing two robots, fetching a single robot's details, listing categories, submitting vendor intros, and searching. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_robots, get_robot, list_categories) with no mixing of conventions.
Five tools is well-scoped for a robot catalog covering search, retrieval, comparison, category browsing, and vendor intros. No tool feels excessive or missing.
Covers search, details, comparison, categories, and vendor intros well. Minor gap: no tool for listing all robots without a query, but search with empty query can likely fill this.