Skip to main content
Glama

get_function_source

Retrieve the source code of a function or method by name, supporting batch lookups and project-specific queries for efficient code navigation.

Instructions

Fetch a function/method source body.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoFunction or method (e.g. 'MyClass.method').
hintsNoAppend a one-line get_full_context hint (default true).
levelNo
namesNoBatch mode: list of names (max 10). Returns {name: result} dict. Mutually exclusive with 'name'.
projectNoProject name/path (default: active).
functionNoAlias de `name`. Function or method (e.g. 'MyClass.method').
file_pathNo
max_linesNoCap lines (0=all, level=0 only).
force_fullNoBypass symbol cache.
symbol_nameNoAlias de `name`. Function or method (e.g. 'MyClass.method').
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Fetch a function/method source body' but omits critical traits: is it a read-only operation? Does it have side effects? Are there performance considerations? Minimal information provided.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise. However, it is too brief for a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations. It could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness to cover key points.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the behavior of 'names' vs 'name', the 'level' parameter, or the 'hints' flag. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is high (80%), so parameters are mostly explained in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Fetch') and the resource ('a function/method source body'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_class_source' or 'get_functions'. While clear, it could be more specific about what 'source body' entails (e.g., the code definition).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision support.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Mibayy/token-savior'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server