Full catalog record for one AI tool: description, features, pros, cons, who it is best for, pricing tiers, and alternatives. Accepts a slug or a display name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | Yes | Slug ('claude-code') or display name ('Claude Code'). |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the output contents in useful detail (pros, cons, pricing tiers, alternatives) and notes input flexibility (slug or display name). It does not mention error behavior for unknown tools, but for a simple lookup tool this is a reasonable level of transparency.
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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary purpose and output fields, and the second sentence gives the invocation detail. It is front-loaded and every sentence contributes useful 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?
For a one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description adequately explains what will be returned and how to specify the tool. It could more explicitly address the relationship to find_ai_tool_alternatives since 'alternatives' appears both as an output field and as a sibling tool name, but this is a minor gap rather than a serious omission.
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 already fully documents the single parameter, including examples ('claude-code', 'Claude Code') and the accepted forms. The description repeats this idea without adding new semantic detail such as matching behavior, case sensitivity, or uniqueness. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 verb ('get') and resource ('AI tool') and explicitly enumerates what a full catalog record includes: description, features, pros, cons, best-for, pricing tiers, and alternatives. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like compare_ai_tools, find_ai_tool_alternatives, and search_ai_tools by emphasizing a single tool lookup.
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 makes the usage context clear: call this when you need the full catalog record for one AI tool. It does not explicitly say 'do not use this for comparing or searching,' but the focus on 'one AI tool' and the listed sibling names imply the boundary. It also specifies the accepted identifiers (slug or display name), which is practical invocation guidance.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: searching, retrieving details, comparing, finding alternatives, and listing categories. Even search and get are well differentiated by description, with search for discovery and get for the full catalog record.
All tools follow the same verb-first snake_case pattern: compare_, find_, get_, list_, search_. The naming clearly indicates both the action and the subject, making the tool set predictable and easy to navigate.
Five tools is an ideal size for a catalog-focused server. Each tool covers a distinct user need without redundancy or unnecessary surface area.
The catalog surface is complete for its read-only purpose: discovery via search, category browsing, detailed lookups, side-by-side comparison, and alternative suggestions. No obvious dead ends or missing operations are apparent.