TypeScript AST MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_function_body

Extract the full body of any function or method from TypeScript or JavaScript files. Supports Class.method syntax for precise targeting.

Instructions

Extracts the full body of a specific function or method. Supports Class.method syntax.

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_function_body"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Function name (e.g., 'setup' or 'MyClass.method')
`path`	Yes	Absolute path to the TS/JS file

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Extracts' implies a read operation, and it mentions the name syntax, but it doesn't state side effects, permissions, or error behavior. It adds some context but lacks detail beyond the core action.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first is front-loaded with the action, and the second adds necessary syntax detail. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description states the primary behavior but doesn't detail the return value format or clarify overlap with sibling tools like get_doc. It is adequate but not complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%: the 'name' parameter already includes the example ('MyClass.method'), and 'path' is described. The description's mention of 'Class.method' syntax adds no new information beyond what the schema already provides, so it's baseline.

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?

Description states a specific verb 'Extracts' and the resource ('full body of a specific function or method'). It also clarifies 'Class.method' syntax support, which differentiates it from sibling tools like list_functions or get_type_definition.

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 use when needing a function's full body, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tools are mentioned in the description.

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