fetchOpen the complete review or subject page from a Pod search result when the preview is not enough.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Exact Subject or Observation ID returned by a Pod search result. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | Complete public Subject or Observation returned by Pod. | |
| interactionId | Yes | Stable ID for this fetch, used when sending Pod feedback. |
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 establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful behavioral context: this opens a fuller page than a preview and is tied to Pod search result IDs. No contradiction with annotations is present.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the action, resource, origin, and condition without redundancy. Every clause earns its place.
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 one well-documented required parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotence, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when and how to use this tool. No critical information 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, with the id parameter already described as the exact Subject or Observation ID from a Pod search result. The description reinforces this source but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific action ('Open'), a specific resource ('complete review or subject page'), and a clear source ('from a Pod search result'). It also distinguishes itself from preview-style siblings by emphasizing completeness, making the tool's role easy to identify.
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 phrase 'when the preview is not enough' provides a clear trigger condition for using this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of a Pod search result strongly implies this is the follow-up to a search/preview workflow.
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 tools have clearly distinct purposes: search handles general experience queries, find_mcp/inspect_mcp are MCP-server-specific, fetch opens detail pages, and feedback records private input. The only mild overlap is between search and find_mcp, but their descriptions make the intended domain difference clear.
All tool names are lowercase imperative verbs, which gives the set a recognizable command-like style. The two MCP-specific tools use the consistent verb_mcp suffix, while the others are single-word verbs, so the pattern is mostly consistent with minor structural variation.
Five tools is a well-scoped number for a Pod discovery platform covering search, fetch, MCP directory lookup, inspection, and feedback. Each tool serves a distinct user need without unnecessary bloat or redundancy.
The set covers the core read/discovery workflow: search experiences, fetch full pages, find and inspect MCP servers, and provide feedback. Obvious gaps are limited—there is no explicit way to submit an experience or publish content, but feedback partially covers contribution.