get_embed_codeUse for a known approved pet slug when the user needs website iframe embed HTML or an embed URL. Do not use for README badges/cards, install instructions, or pet discovery; use get_badge_code, get_card_code, get_install_instructions, or search_pets instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Exact slug of an approved public Codex pet. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionPrevious value: -"Approved Codex pet slug."New value: +"Exact slug of an approved public Codex pet."Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionPrevious value: -"Exact slug of an approved public Codex pet."New value: +"Approved Codex pet slug."Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionPrevious value: -"Approved Codex pet slug."New value: +"Exact slug of an approved public Codex pet."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description mentions 'approved public Codex pet' which adds context about authorization, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond the schema and 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?
Two sentences with no waste. The key information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place, providing purpose and exclusions efficiently.
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 simple tool with one parameter, good annotations, and no output schema, the description covers when to use, what it returns, and what not to use it for. No gaps given the tool's complexity.
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% for the single required 'slug' parameter, which has a description. The description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves website embed HTML or URL for a known approved pet slug. It uses specific verbs ('get website iframe embed HTML or an embed URL') and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_badge_code.
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?
Explicitly states when to use (known approved pet slug, needs embed) and when not to use (README badges/cards, install instructions, pet discovery) with named alternative tools.
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 with explicit guidance on when to use it and references to alternatives, eliminating ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_ or search_ + specific noun), making the pattern predictable.
7 tools cover the server's read-only retrieval scope perfectly without excess or deficiency.
The tool set fully covers the domain of retrieving approved pet information and understanding the request process, with no gaps for its stated read-only purpose.