get_class_sourceRetrieve the source code of a Smalltalk class by providing its name. Use it to inspect class definitions directly from a local Pharo or Squeak image.
Get the source code of a Smalltalk class.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| class_name | Yes | The name of the class to retrieve source for |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the readOnlyHint annotation already conveys. It does not mention return shape nuances, error behavior, or whether the source includes comments; the output schema would cover return format, but the description itself contributes no extra transparency.
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, direct sentence that front-loads the core purpose with no filler words. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.
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 read-only, one-parameter tool with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient for correct invocation. It falls slightly short only because it omits usage guidance to disambiguate from closely related class/method source tools.
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%, and the single parameter class_name is already described in the schema as 'The name of the class to retrieve source for.' The tool description repeats the same concept without adding detail about formatting, case sensitivity, or fully qualified names.
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 a specific action ('get') on a specific resource ('source code of a Smalltalk class'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_method_source and get_class_comment. The class scope is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_method_source, get_class_comment, or search_classes_like. There are no explicit context cues or exclusions; an agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.