extract_code_examplesExtract code blocks from a documentation file to get language and line numbers, making it easy to locate and reuse code examples.
Extracts all code blocks from a documentation file with their language and line numbers
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes | Name of the documentation file (without .md extension, e.g., "resources", "tools") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that it extracts all code blocks and includes language and line numbers, clarifying the output scope and nature of the operation.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the output detail. It contains no redundant phrasing, filler, or unrelated context, making it highly concise and efficiently scannable.
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-only extraction tool with one well-documented parameter and safety annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and return characteristics. It mentions 'all code blocks' and the inclusion of language and line numbers, mitigating the absence of an output schema. The schema handles the filename format, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The only parameter, filename, is fully described in the schema, including the no-.md-extension convention and concrete examples ('resources', 'tools'). With 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add parameter semantics; the baseline of 3 applies because the description merely reinforces the 'documentation file' concept already present in the schema.
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 uses the specific verb 'Extracts' with a clear resource ('all code blocks from a documentation file') and specifies the output characteristics (language and line numbers). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_documentation and search_in_docs, which serve different purposes.
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 clearly indicates the operation and context: use this when you need to extract code blocks from a documentation file. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the distinct purpose makes the usage evident. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, but none are needed for this straightforward read operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.