get_guideCompatibility alias of get_guides — the identical tool under its common misspelling. Prefer get_guides; see it for full usage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | No | ||
| topics | No | ||
| projectId | No |
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?
Annotations provide some context (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false) but the description adds little: it only says 'identical tool,' which is a relational trait rather than actual behavioral information. It doesn't disclose what the tool does, side effects, or return behavior. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description doesn't add meaningful behavior beyond the alias statement.
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?
Two sentences, no fluff, and the key alias information is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a redirect stub, and the structure immediately tells the agent to use the canonical tool.
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?
The description is intentionally incomplete but directs the agent to get_guides for full usage, which is a valid strategy given the sibling exists. However, on its own it doesn't provide enough to invoke correctly (no parameter semantics or return expectations). It partially compensates by naming the authoritative source, but it's not self-contained.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description mentions no parameters. The three parameters (topic, topics, projectId) have no explanation anywhere. The description provides zero compensation, leaving the agent with no idea how to fill or interpret these fields.
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 identifies the tool as a 'compatibility alias' of get_guides, which states its nature but not its function. It doesn't say what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieves guides by topic) and relies entirely on the reader knowing get_guides. This is more informative than a pure tautology but still vague about the core operation.
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?
Explicitly instructs to 'Prefer get_guides' and directs the agent to 'see it for full usage.' This is clear, decisive guidance on when and when-not to use this tool, naming the preferred sibling and the condition for using this alias. No ambiguity.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct, but there is some overlap among file-modifying tools (edit_file, write_file, apply_patch) and between run_code_in_vm and run_code_in_browser. Detailed descriptions and clearly scoped use cases help agents select correctly.
Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_project, list_files, execute_sql), but a few deviate (apply_patch, card_upload_asset, run_code_in_vm). Overall readable and predictable, with only minor inconsistencies.
With 46 tools, the server exceeds the typical well-scoped range and approaches the extreme threshold. While the broad scope of a full development platform justifies many tools, this count may overwhelm agents and increase misselection risk.
The tool surface covers the full development lifecycle: project creation, file operations, database management, resource provisioning, deployment, testing, and debugging. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete_project or checkpoint management), but core workflows are well-supported.