Fetch the manifest and source modules for an ESM rewrite script revision via LemonMCP. Provide a script package id to inspect the active or a historical revision.
Fetches the complete manifest and source modules for an active or historical ESM rewrite script revision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Script package id | |
| revision | No | Optional historical revision. Omit to read the active revision. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It states scope (complete manifest + modules) but omits return format, size/performance characteristics, and whether it is a pure read. For a fetch tool with zero annotation coverage, this is adequate but incomplete.
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?
A single tight sentence with no filler, and the key scope ('complete manifest and source modules') is front-loaded. Efficient, though minimal.
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 two-parameter read with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description conveys the returned payload type, but lacks any note on error behavior, missing revisions, or large-package handling. Adequate but leaves gaps.
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 already documents both 'id' and the optional 'revision'. The description adds the concept of active vs historical revisions, but that is already captured in the schema's revision description. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
Clear verb+resource: 'Fetches the complete manifest and source modules for ... ESM rewrite script revision'. It names the specific artifact (manifest + source modules), distinguishing it from validate_/list_ siblings. However it does not explicitly contrast with sibling get_module_package or list_rewrite_script_revisions, so it stops short of 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?
The phrase 'active or historical revision' implies the revision parameter usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or naming of alternatives like validate_rewrite_script_package. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.