Retrieves the complete source code for a specific amCharts 5 example or demo when you provide its path; use list_examples or search_all to find the path.
Get the full code for a specific amCharts 5 example/demo. Use list_examples or search_all to find the path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Example path, e.g. 'examples/flow/sankey-diagram', 'examples/pie-donut/donut-chart', 'examples/maps/drill-down-map' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the return value ('full code', i.e. complete source rather than metadata), which is useful, but says nothing about behavior on an invalid path, whether results are cached, or size limits. Adequate but not rich.
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 short sentences with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the prerequisite follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.
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 one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input provenance, and the nature of the returned content ('full code'). It stops short of noting what happens if the path is wrong or nonexistent, a minor gap for a tool this simple.
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 schema already supplies concrete path examples ('examples/flow/sankey-diagram'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that the path comes from list_examples or search_all, which is routing context rather than new parameter semantics.
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 precise verb+resource ('Get the full code for a specific amCharts 5 example/demo') and scopes it to a single example, which cleanly separates it from list_examples (enumeration) and get_doc/get_api_reference (reference material). An agent can pick this tool without opening the schema.
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?
Explicitly names the prerequisite discovery tools ('Use list_examples or search_all to find the path'), telling the agent both when to use this tool and how to obtain its required input. Nothing about routing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.