get_chunkRetrieve a code chunk by ID with optional surrounding lines to expand semantic search results and inspect symbol definitions and usage details.
Get a code chunk by ID with optional surrounding context. Returns code with symbol definitions and usage info. Use to expand on search results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chunk_id | Yes | Chunk ID from search_code results | |
| radius_lines | No | Lines of surrounding context to include (0-200) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful value by saying what comes back (code with symbol definitions and usage info), but says nothing about truncation, size limits, or behavior at large radius_lines values.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the return shape and usage hint. Nothing is wasted.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by summarizing the return content. For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, this is nearly complete; only edge-case behavior for large radii is absent.
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%, so both parameters are already documented including the 0-200 range and the search_code provenance of chunk_id. The description only restates the existence of optional surrounding context, adding no syntax or tradeoff detail beyond the schema.
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 and resource ('Get a code chunk by ID') plus the optional surrounding-context capability and what the response contains. It is clearly distinct from siblings like search_code and find_usages, though the differentiation is implied through the description rather than an explicit naming.
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?
'Use to expand on search results' gives clear context for when to reach for this tool, reinforced by the schema note that chunk_id comes from search_code results. No explicit when-not guidance or naming of an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.