Get the full reference for a tool: its complete description and input schema, including every action and all required and optional parameters. Call this before using a tool whose listed description is brief and you need the full field list.
Params:
tool_name (string, required) — the tool to describe (a name from search_tools or the tool list).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool_name | Yes | Name of the tool to get full help for |
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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about what the call returns—'complete description and input schema'—and the scope of that output, which goes beyond the annotations.
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?
Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the purpose, the second gives the usage trigger, and the param line clarifies the argument. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and there is no filler or repetition that could be cut without losing 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?
With a single parameter, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and when to invoke it. Nothing an agent needs to decide to call this tool is missing.
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?
While the input schema already describes tool_name, the description adds critical sourcing guidance: 'the tool to describe (a name from search_tools or the tool list).' This tells the agent exactly where to obtain valid values, which is more helpful than the schema's generic 'Name of the tool to get full help for.'
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full reference for a tool: its complete description and input schema, including every action and all required and optional parameters.' This clearly distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which serve a meta-help function.
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 gives an explicit call condition: 'Call this before using a tool whose listed description is brief and you need the full field list.' It does not name alternative tools, but no alternative exists; a clearer 'when not to use' clause is the only minor omission.
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.
Most tool names are distinct, but several surfaces overlap: find_jobs and get_job_posting both provide marketplace job search/get, and list_offers' list and list_mine are duplicates. The verbose descriptions help, but an agent could still select the wrong tool, especially when actions are nested inside tools.
All tools share the upwork__ prefix and a snake_case verb_noun pattern, which is easy to scan. There are minor inconsistencies in verb choice (get_account vs list_accounts, get_messages vs send_message) and a few vague names, but no chaotic mixing of conventions.
33 tools is over the 25+ threshold and includes redundancies like duplicate marketplace job search surfaces and list/list_mine in list_offers, plus several meta/config tools. The broad Upwork domain explains some of the count, but the surface is heavier and more duplicated than it needs to be.
Client-side workflows are well covered: job posting, proposals, offers, contracts, milestones, messaging, and financials. However, core freelancer flows are incomplete—there is no tool for submitting a proposal or accepting an offer—and descriptions reference missing tools such as list_freelancer_proposals and respond_to_offer, creating notable dead ends.
