Retrieve the active project's transpiled Python or Arduino C code from the open mBlock app via device.getCode(), giving you the preprocessed source for review or external use.
LIVE: get transpiled Python/ArduinoC via device.getCode() in the app (like preprocess).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that this is a live read via device.getCode(), which gives some insight into the operation's nature, but it does not discuss potential device availability or failure behavior.
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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key qualifier 'LIVE' and immediately states the operation and source.
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 parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: it states the output type (transpiled Python/ArduinoC) and the method (device.getCode()). It is missing only minor details like error/availability behavior.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully describes the input space. The description has no parameter information to add, which is acceptable and matches the baseline for parameterless tools.
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 names a specific verb and resource: getting transpiled Python/ArduinoC code via device.getCode(). It clearly explains what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like export_code.
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 implies usage for retrieving live transpiled code, partly through the 'LIVE' prefix and 'in the app' phrasing. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.