Retrieve the full source code of an IBM Planning Analytics TI process by name. Use this to inspect, debug, or document process logic directly from the model.
Full source of a TI process.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| processName | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 states the return value ('Full source') but does not disclose the output format, potential errors, read-only nature, or any other behavioral traits. The tool name implies retrieval, but the description adds little beyond that.
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 phrase with no wasted words. It is immediately understandable and front-loaded. It could be slightly more informative, but it earns a high score for efficiency.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description is too sparse. It does not specify what 'full source' includes, what the return type is, or any usage context. An agent can infer the basic call but lacks important operational details.
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% and the description does not explain the processName parameter. It only identifies the resource as 'a TI process', which adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
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 tool returns the full source code of a TI process, which is a specific resource and output. It lacks an explicit verb, but the intent is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like tm1_list_processes, but 'source' is distinct enough to differentiate.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this is for retrieving process code as opposed to listing process metadata, nor does it provide any context for when an agent should select it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.