Fetch the full contents of an API file from a GitHub service at a given path and ref, enabling detailed analysis for API change detection and test generation.
Get the full content of an API file for detailed analysis
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref (branch/commit) to read from | |
| filePath | Yes | Path to the API file | |
| serviceName | Yes | Name of the service |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't state whether the read is safe, whether it's read-only (though 'Get' implies it), or what happens with large files. It also doesn't mention the git ref behavior—whether omitting the ref defaults to a branch—which is important for a file-reading tool. These gaps are significant given the lack of annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., full file content as a string), how the git ref parameter affects the read, or any error conditions. An agent would need to guess about these behaviors, which is inadequate given the complexity of Git-based file retrieval.
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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or default behavior for the ref. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clear verb (Get) and resource (full content of an API file) with an implied purpose (detailed analysis). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_services or get_api_changes, but doesn't explicitly name the differentiation. This is clear but lacks the sibling routing that would make it a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. An agent must infer that get_api_details should be used when full-file content is needed for analysis, but this is never stated. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.