get_entity
Full dossier for one entity: signal count, verticals it's spreading across, and why it's surfacing.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Full dossier for one entity: signal count, verticals it's spreading across, and why it's surfacing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | 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 are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the kind of return data (signal count, verticals, why surfacing) but does not state read-only behavior, error handling, or side effects. Adequate for a simple getter but incomplete on safety context.
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 that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key output components with no filler.
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?
For a single-parameter getter, the description covers what it does and what it returns. Given the large sibling set, adding a note about when not to use it would aid completeness, but the current description is nearly sufficient for selection.
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?
The input schema only has a bare 'name' string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by indicating that the parameter identifies a single entity, adding meaning beyond the schema field.
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 it returns a 'full dossier for one entity' with specific contents: signal count, verticals, and why it's surfacing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_signals or get_record by emphasizing a comprehensive, single-entity view.
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 implies use when a deep dive on one entity is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_entities or get_signals. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct function: ask is async event queries, get_answer retrieves results, get_signals and top_accelerating provide different signal views, get_entity and search_entities cover entity details and search, etc. No two tools have overlapping purposes, and descriptions clearly separate them.
The majority of tools follow a 'get_' prefix for retrieval (13 of 21) and other clear verbs like 'ask', 'create_order', 'propose_topic', 'send_feedback'. A few use noun phrases like 'todays_brief' and 'top_accelerating', which breaks the pattern slightly but are still intuitive. Overall consistent and predictable.
21 tools cover the full scope of the server: exploration, querying, ordering, account management, feedback, and data records. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy, and the count feels well-scoped for the domain.
The tool surface covers all major workflows: browsing signals, asking questions, getting detailed reports, ordering, providing feedback, and proposing new topics. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit tool to cancel an order or manage watched topics directly), but core operations are present and agents can handle the domain effectively.