reanim_get_module_infoParse a module file to return its AddModule entries—type, name, description, InternalName—and file size. Use a filename or full path to inspect module contents.
Parse one module file and return its AddModule entries (type/name/description/InternalName) plus size. Accepts filename or full path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | e.g. v_moveset1.lua or MARKET_Pipis.allinone.lua |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does 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 return-content detail the annotations cannot supply: the AddModule fields returned plus a size value. It omits error behavior for a missing/unparseable file, but with annotations lowering the bar this is a solid addition.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and return contents, then the argument flexibility. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description appropriately enumerates the returned AddModule fields and size, making it callable without guesswork. It stops short of describing not-found or malformed-file behavior, a minor gap for a read-only parser.
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?
With 1 parameter at 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema's example: it clarifies the single 'file' argument may be either a bare filename or a full path. No enum or type details are needed beyond that.
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: 'Parse one module file and return its AddModule entries'. The return fields (type/name/description/InternalName) make the output concrete, and 'one module file' signals the single-file scope versus list-oriented siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling like reanim_list_modules, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
'Accepts filename or full path' hints at flexible invocation but never states when to use this over reanim_list_modules, reanim_validate_module, or reanim_check_module_assets. Usage is implied by the parse-one-file framing rather than explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.