Retrieve the raw content of a dataset template by relative path, enabling agents and IDEs to inspect or reuse scaffolding files.
Devuelve el contenido crudo de una plantilla del dataset por su ruta relativa.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| relativePath | Yes | Ruta relativa de la plantilla dentro del dataset, p.ej. "shared/utils/services/http-client.service.ts". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the return is the raw template content scoped to the dataset, but it does not describe missing-path behavior, permissions, or any other operating context.
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 sentence with no waste, front-loading the action and the key selector. Nothing needs to be trimmed.
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 one-parameter getter with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description gives enough to understand the operation and return form ('contenido crudo'). It could still mention failure behavior or path expectations, but the core is covered.
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 the sole parameter is already documented with an example. The description only restates that lookup is by relative path, adding no extra format or constraints 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Devuelve') and resource ('contenido crudo de una plantilla del dataset') and makes clear the lookup is by relative path. This naturally separates it from list_templates, but it does not explicitly name or contrast against any sibling.
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?
Usage is implied: an agent should call this when it already has a relative template path and wants the raw contents. The description does not explicitly say when to use this versus list_templates or what to do if the path is unknown.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.