get_config
Get a single configuration's data by config_uuid, optionally with its revisions.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| config_uuid | Yes | ||
| organization_uuid | Yes |
Get a single configuration's data by config_uuid, optionally with its revisions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| config_uuid | Yes | ||
| organization_uuid | Yes |
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 the description carries the burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get'), but lacks details on behavioral traits like whether revisions are returned by default, authentication needs, or side effects. The description is too brief.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that communicates the core purpose and key optional behavior. Every word earns its place with no fluff.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (get by ID), no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is adequate but not thorough. It covers the basic purpose but misses details on return format, error scenarios, and revision behavior.
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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by config_uuid' but does not describe the 'organization_uuid' parameter or add any format or meaning beyond the schema. The optional 'with its revisions' is a behavioral note, not parameter-level detail.
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 'Get a single configuration's data' using a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_config, delete_config, and list_configs. The optional 'with its revisions' adds specificity.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for retrieving a specific configuration, but does not mention when to prefer it over list_configs or other get operations.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, targeting either configs or modules with specific actions (create, get, list, delete, update, deploy, etc.). The only potential overlap is between edit_config and plan_config, but they serve different stages of config management (editing vs. authoring).
The naming follows a verb_noun pattern consistently (e.g., create_config, delete_config, list_configs). Minor inconsistency: 'list_configs' uses plural while most others use singular (config). Overall, the pattern is predictable and clear.
With 19 tools, the count is slightly above average but justified by the need to manage two resource types (configs and modules) with full lifecycle operations including deployment, revision handling, and validation. It is well-scoped for a configuration management server.
The tool surface is comprehensive, covering CRUD for both configs and modules, plus deployment, undeployment, toggling, revision management, editing via NL, planning, and validation. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.