tez_analyze_functionExtract an OCaml function implementation from Tezos protocol source code to inspect its logic and usage.
Extract an OCaml function implementation from the protocol source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| protocol | No | Optional protocol name filter | |
| function_name | Yes | Function name (e.g. 'apply_operation', 'bake') |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only states the action but does not disclose what the function returns, whether it searches across protocols, or error behavior, so it is limited.
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, front-loaded with the action, making it easy to parse.
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?
The description is minimal and lacks information about return value, expected output format, or any prerequisites. For a source extraction tool, this could be incomplete, so it scores low.
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?
Both parameters have descriptions in the schema: 'Optional protocol name filter' and 'Function name (e.g. 'apply_operation', 'bake')'. The description itself does not add additional parameter context beyond the schema, so it meets baseline.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Extract an OCaml function implementation from the protocol source.' It uses a specific verb 'Extract' and specifies the resource, distinguishing it from sibling search tools.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like tez_search or tez_grep_constant, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.