Retrieve a file's structural skeleton—classes, functions, and line bounds—without loading its full contents into context.
Get the structural skeleton (all classes, functions, line bounds) of a file without reading its entire contents into context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes | File path relative to the workspace root (e.g. 'core/assemble.py'). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return scope (skeleton only, not bodies) and implicitly that this is a non-mutating read, but it says nothing about permissions, error behavior for missing files, or handling of non-code files.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the primary purpose and parenthetically enumerating the returned content. Every clause earns its place with no padding.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return contents (classes, functions, line bounds), which is what an agent needs for a simple single-parameter read tool. Minor gaps around error handling and unsupported file types remain.
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?
Single parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents file_path and its workspace-relative format. The description adds only that it targets 'a file', which is the baseline expectation.
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?
States a specific verb ('get') and resource ('outline') and immediately defines what the outline contains: classes, functions, line bounds. An agent knows exactly what artifact it receives, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_symbol_slice or find_symbol.
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 its entire contents into context' implies the token-efficiency motivation for choosing this over a full file read, but no alternative tool is named and no when-not condition is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.