EPK Properties Public Knowledge MCP

Get public guide section

get_guide_section

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user supplies a public EPK guide section ID or wants the complete section identified by search_guides.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Stable public guide section ID supplied by the user or returned by search_guides.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`url`	Yes
`kind`	Yes
`text`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`country`	Yes
`section`	Yes
`sources`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`language`	Yes
`metadata`	No
`image_url`	Yes
`countryName`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedAug 31, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / id / description

Previous value: -"Guide section ID returned by search_guides."New value: +"Stable public guide section ID supplied by the user or returned by search_guides."

Changed2 schema fields changedAug 4, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / image_url

Added value: +{
+  "format": "uri",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "title",
-  "url",
-  "text",
-  "kind",
-  "country",
-  "countryName",
-  "language",
-  "section",
-  "summary",
-  "sources"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "title",
+  "url",
+  "text",
+  "kind",
+  "country",
+  "countryName",
+  "image_url",
+  "language",
+  "section",
+  "summary",
+  "sources"
+]

First observedAug 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that the resource is public (no auth implied) and that the tool returns the complete section as opposed to a summary or snippet. This is useful context beyond the annotation flags.

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 one sentence that front-loads the usage condition and the source of the ID. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a single-parameter, read-only retrieval tool with a complete input schema, explicit annotations, and an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context: when to call it, what it returns, and where the ID comes from. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The schema already documents the single parameter fully (pattern, type, description) at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description reiterates that the ID is public and comes from the user or search_guides but does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter description.

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 title 'Get public guide section' names the verb and resource, and the description clarifies that it returns 'the complete section' for a given ID. It also distinguishes itself from search_guides by framing the ID as something search_guides returns, so an agent can tell it apart from the search sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly opens with 'Use this when the user supplies a public EPK guide section ID or wants the complete section identified by search_guides,' providing a clear trigger condition. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use or other alternatives, but the search_guides reference implies the division of labor.

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

All EPK Properties Public Knowledge MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The search tools are clearly separated by scope (combined vs guides-only vs properties-only), and the getters are typed by resource. However, `fetch` overlaps conceptually with `get_property` and `get_guide_section` because it also retrieves full property or guide documents, relying on a different ID type to distinguish itself.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern: search/search_guides/search_properties and get_guide_section/get_property. The single bare `fetch` breaks the pattern and uses a synonym for `get`, creating a minor but noticeable inconsistency.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is a tight, well-scoped set for a public knowledge server covering properties and guides. Each tool serves a distinct query or retrieval need, and none feel redundant or out of place.

Completeness5/5

The set covers combined and filtered searching plus retrieval for property details, guide sections, and full public documents. For a read-only public knowledge domain, this is a complete lifecycle with no obvious dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?