Retrieve the declaration or implementation text of a PLC POU, DUT, GVL, or interface tree item, including its methods, properties, and actions.
Declaration/implementation text of a POU/DUT/GVL/interface tree item and its methods/properties/actions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| include_subitems | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds that the result spans declaration AND implementation text plus nested methods/properties/actions, which is genuinely useful scoping context, but it says nothing about path resolution or error behavior.
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 with no filler. It is efficient, though the absence of a verb makes the opening slightly less scannable than it could be.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. However, for a tool whose only required parameter is an undocumented path string, the definition is thinner than the task demands.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at what 'subitems' means (methods/properties/actions), indirectly clarifying include_subitems, but leaves the required 'path' parameter completely unexplained—no format, root, or delimiter guidance.
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 names a specific resource (a POU/DUT/GVL/interface tree item) and specifies the returned content (declaration/implementation text, including methods/properties/actions). It is clear what the tool retrieves, though it never states a verb and does not distinguish itself from close siblings like xae_tree_get or proj_get_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?
No when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives despite many overlapping siblings (xae_tree_get, proj_get_code, infosys_declaration, xae_pou_set). The agent must infer the use case entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.