Retrieve a file's structural outline—classes, methods, functions, headers, and line numbers—without loading the full file, cutting token usage by about 90%.
Returns a lightweight file skeleton (classes, methods, functions, headers, line numbers) without reading the whole file. Saves ~90% of tokens.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| workspace_dir | No | . |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that only a skeleton is returned, the whole file is not read, and token savings are significant. This is strong transparency for a read-style outline operation.
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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and deliverable, and the second adds a concrete efficiency benefit. Every part earns its place.
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?
The tool itself is simple and the output schema likely covers return values, so the description does not need to explain returns. However, the complete lack of parameter documentation, especially workspace_dir, means the agent may still guess about path resolution. The description is adequate for purpose but not fully complete for 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies that 'path' refers to a file, but it does not explain the meaning or relationship of 'workspace_dir', nor how paths are resolved. The parameter semantics remain largely undocumented.
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 states exactly what the tool does: it returns a lightweight file skeleton and enumerates the included elements (classes, methods, functions, headers, line numbers). This makes the tool's purpose specific and clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like fetch_url or read_memory.
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 phrase 'without reading the whole file' gives a clear use case: choose this tool when you need an overview or structure and want to save tokens. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the intended context is strongly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.