GMA2 MCP

read_macro_lines

Read and parse all lines of a macro by providing its ID, returning each line's number and command string.

Instructions

Read macro line content for a given macro.

Retrieves and parses all lines of a macro, returning each line's
number and command string.

Args:
    macro_id: Macro ID to read
    pool: Macro pool number (default 1)

Returns:
    dict with parsed macro lines and raw response

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "macro_id": "<macro_id>"
    },
    "name": "read_macro_lines"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`macro_id`	Yes
`pool`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that it retrieves and parses lines and returns a dict with parsed lines and raw response, but it does not state idempotency, side effects, permissions, or error handling. The description adds some context beyond annotations (none present) but lacks full transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with a brief intro, structured Args section, and clear return type. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the main purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return structure. It is fairly complete for a simple read tool, though it could mention error handling or behavior when macro does not exist.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the schema has no descriptions. The description compensates by explaining both parameters in the Args section: 'macro_id: Macro ID to read' and 'pool: Macro pool number (default 1)'. This adds full semantic meaning beyond the schema's minimal type/title info.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Read macro line content for a given macro' with a specific verb (read) and resource (macro line content). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_macros' (lists macro names) and 'set_macro_line' (writes lines), as it retrieves and parses all lines.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for reading macro content but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like 'run_macro' or 'set_macro_line'. No when-not-to-use guidance or context for choosing this tool over siblings is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server