Retrieve a variable or parameter value from any IC-CAP object by specifying its path and name. Searches the object hierarchy to find the value, even when the exact type is ambiguous.
Get visible variable or parameter value from an object, searching the hierarchy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Variable or parameter name | |
| object_path | Yes | ||
| object_type | No | Specify the exact IC-CAP type when a path can name more than one object. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key behavior—that the lookup searches the hierarchy and only returns 'visible' values—but it does not mention read-only safety, what happens when the variable is not found, or how visibility is determined.
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?
The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core behavior. It wastes no words, though it is perhaps too terse to fully compensate for missing usage and parameter guidance.
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?
Given three parameters, no output schema, and a dense field of sibling getters, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. It does not clarify object_path semantics, when to set object_type, or how this differs from object_get_val and the typed variable getters.
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 67%, with 'name' and 'object_type' documented but 'object_path' left undocumented. The description adds only general context ('from an object, searching the hierarchy') rather than explaining object_path or the role of object_type in disambiguation, leaving a meaningful gap.
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 action ('Get visible variable or parameter value') and a resource ('from an object'), with a distinctive qualifier ('searching the hierarchy'). It is clear but could more explicitly contrast with the sibling object_get_val, so it is not a full 5.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related getters such as object_get_val, svar_get, dvar_get, or mvar_get. The context is implied at best and no exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.