Retrieve a ready-to-use Delphi, DUnitX, or CLI code snippet from a specific category to configure projects, tests, and coverage pipelines.
Retorna um snippet de codigo Delphi/DUnitX/CLI pronto para uso, de uma categoria especifica
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nome | Yes | Nome do snippet dentro da categoria | |
| categoria | Yes | Categoria do snippet |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description is the only source of behavior. It clearly states the tool returns compilable code snippets, which is the core behavior for a get operation. It does not disclose edge cases like invalid categories/names or return format, but for a read-only retrieval tool this is acceptable.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The key action and resource appear immediately, and the category qualifier adds necessary constraint without redundancy.
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 two-parameter snippet getter, the description covers the essence. It lacks guidance on how to discover valid snippet names (via list_snippets) and does not describe the return payload, but given no output schema this is a minor gap rather than a critical one.
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 100%, with both parameters documented and categoria restricted by an enum. The description references the category dimension but adds no new semantics about either parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate where the schema carries the information.
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?
Description states the tool returns a ready-to-use Delphi/DUnitX/CLI code snippet from a specified category, using a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_snippets and search_snippets by focusing on retrieval of a single snippet, but does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 phrase 'pronto para uso' and 'de uma categoria especifica' imply the tool is used when a concrete snippet from a known category is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_snippets or search_snippets, and no mention of prerequisites such as knowing the snippet name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.