Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
code-lens

code-lens

by j0hanz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Generate Documentation

generate_documentation
Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate documentation stubs for all public exports in a cached file, with automatic language inference.

Instructions

Generate documentation stubs for all public exports in a cached file. Prerequisite: load_file. Auto-infer language.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "generate_documentation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
languageNoPrimary language (e.g. TypeScript, Python, JavaScript, Go, Rust, Java). Auto-infer from files.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesWhether the tool completed successfully.
resultNoSuccessful result payload.
errorNoError payload when ok is false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.12.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, read-only behavior. The description adds 'Auto-infer language' and 'Prerequisite: load_file', which are beyond the annotations and useful.

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: first defines purpose, second adds prerequisite and auto-infer detail. No wasted words, front-loaded with core action.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With only one optional parameter, clear annotations, and an output schema present, the description fully covers what the tool does, its prerequisite, and parameter behavior.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with parameter 'language' already well-described. The description adds 'Auto-infer from files' context, enhancing agent understanding.

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 specifies the action ('Generate documentation stubs') and the resource ('all public exports in a cached file'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'generate_diff' and 'generate_review_summary'.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly states prerequisite ('load_file'), providing clear context for when to use. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools