Examine type structure—fields, properties, methods—in an assembly without decompiling method bodies. Simplify game modding by understanding types.
Inspect type structure (fields, properties, methods) without decompiling method bodies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assembly | Yes | Assembly key | |
| type_name | Yes | Full type name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It signals a read-only inspection and adds a useful scope boundary (method bodies are not decompiled), but says nothing about permissions, cost, or what the output looks like.
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?
One tight sentence that leads with the action and scope boundary. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.
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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and scope but does not sketch the return shape (how fields/methods are presented) or note any constraints on the assembly/type identifiers.
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 description coverage is 100% (assembly key, full type name), so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (inspect) and resource (type structure) and enumerates what is returned (fields, properties, methods). The clause 'without decompiling method bodies' implicitly separates it from the sibling decompile_type, though it never names that sibling.
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?
Usage is implied: you would reach for this when you need type shape but not method bodies. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of decompile_type as the alternative when bodies are needed, and no prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.