Retrieve full documentation for a Dalamud type, including all properties, methods, and events. Use it to answer API questions when writing FFXIV Dalamud plugins.
Get full documentation for a Dalamud type including all properties, methods, and events.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Type name (simple or namespace-qualified), e.g. "IClientState" or "Dalamud.Plugin.Services.IClientState" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' implies a read-only lookup with no side effects, and it does disclose what the response contains (properties, methods, events), but it never confirms read-only behavior, caching semantics, or whether a missing type errors versus returns empty.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and payload are stated immediately. It is appropriately sized, though the spare text is partly why behavioral and usage gaps remain.
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?
With no output schema, the description does name the returned sections (properties, methods, events), which is the minimum needed. It stops short of describing result shape, pagination/truncation, or the interaction with the sibling refresh_cache, so it is adequate but not complete for a documentation-lookup tool.
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 single parameter already documents both simple and namespace-qualified forms with examples, so the description adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 (Get) and resource (Dalamud type) and enumerates the payload (properties, methods, events), so the agent knows this is the deep-detail lookup. It does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like get_member or get_namespace, leaving the differentiation to inference.
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: call it when you already have a type name and need its full surface area. There is no statement of when to prefer this over search_members, get_member, or get_namespace, and no prerequisites (e.g. cache freshness, refresh_cache) are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.