Returns a feature's code: its tasks, the product's repositories, live branches and commits by task keys. Useful for checking a feature's spec against the implementation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Feature key #F12; not with featureID | |
| featureID | No | Feature ID; not with key |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / key / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "maxLength": 12,
- "minLength": 1,
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
- "maximum": 9007199254740991,
- "type": "integer"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "maxLength": 12,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / key / descriptionPrevious value: -"Feature key #F12 (or F12, 12); not with featureID"New value: +"Feature key #F12; not with featureID"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the result spans live branches and commits by task keys, which hints at an aggregation over live repo state, but says nothing about auth scope, freshness, or cost of the cross-repo lookup.
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, front-loaded with what is returned, no filler. Slightly awkward phrasing ('a feature's code') but every clause carries content.
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 read-only tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers what comes back well enough to invoke it. The remaining gap is disambiguation from the neighboring feature/task code-context tools, which is a routing concern rather than a call-correctness one.
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 100% and both parameters are documented there, including the mutual exclusivity ('not with featureID' / 'not with key'). The description contributes nothing about key format or the alternation, so baseline 3 is correct.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Returns a feature's code') and enumerates the payload (tasks, repositories, branches, commits), so the agent knows it is an aggregate code-context fetch. However it never distinguishes itself from the very similar siblings feature_context and task_code_context, leaving a real ambiguity.
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?
'Useful for checking a feature's spec against the implementation' gives one implied scenario but no explicit when-to-use rule, no exclusions, and no alternative named. With feature_context, task_code_context and repo_context all in the sibling list, the agent gets no routing help.
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.