get_examplesRetrieve executable code examples from Bestax component docs to verify current props and usage; filter by heading or code and limit results.
Working examples from the component's documentation page. Every one is executed on the docs site, so they compile against this version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | Filter by example heading or code, e.g. "loading" | |
| component | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: examples are executed on the docs site and compile against the current version, which tells the agent the return quality and validity.
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 with no filler. The most useful information—that examples are executed and version-compatible—is front-loaded after the resource statement.
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 read tool with no output schema, the description is adequate at a high level, but it leaves parameter semantics to a schema that is only 33% documented. An agent still lacks explicit guidance on required fields, filtering, and limits, so it is not fully complete for reliable invocation.
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 only 33%, with limit and component undocumented in the schema. The description does not compensate: it never mentions the required component parameter, the limit cap, or the query filter. It only implies a component via 'the component's documentation page', which is insufficient for correct invocation.
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 resource ('working examples from the component's documentation page') and adds that they are executed and version-matched. It clearly identifies the tool as retrieving examples, but does not differentiate from siblings like get_props or get_component beyond the implicit resource name.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions for selecting this over alternatives, and no stated prerequisites. The closest signal is 'from the component's documentation page', which implies usage but leaves the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate versus get_props or get_component.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.