Fetch complete source and metadata for any symbol by name or ID to see its definition and context.
Fetch the full source and metadata of a symbol by name or id.
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": "get_definition"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It only states 'Fetch' which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly disclose side effects, access requirements, or performance implications. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
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 with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and it is front-loaded with the primary action and resource.
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?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and an empty parameter schema, the description is the sole source of information. It explains the purpose but leaves critical gaps: how to specify 'name' or 'id' (parameter names), what exactly is returned, and any limitations or edge cases. This is insufficient for confident invocation.
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?
The schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per rubric. The description adds meaning by indicating that the tool accepts either a 'name' or 'id', which is more than the empty schema provides. However, it does not specify the exact parameter keys or whether both are required, though the baseline is already at 4 and the description adds value.
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 action ('Fetch') and the resource ('full source and metadata of a symbol'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'symbol_search' (search vs. retrieval) and 'get_context' (context vs. full source/metadata). The phrase 'by name or id' further specifies the identification method.
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?
The description implies the tool is used when a symbol's source or metadata is needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like 'symbol_search' or 'get_context'. There is no mention of preconditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.