Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sifs

sifs

by tristanmanchester
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

get_chunk

Read an indexed code chunk using a repository-relative file path and line number to retrieve source context.

Instructions

Read the indexed chunk containing a repository-relative file path and one-based line.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>",
      "line": "<line>"
    },
    "name": "get_chunk"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYesRepository-relative file path exactly as shown in a search result or list_files.
lineYesOne-based line number inside the desired chunk.
profileNoSaved profile to use for source defaults.
sourceNoGit URL or local path. Omit only when the server has a default source.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so description carries full burden. It states 'Read' implying no side effects, but does not disclose error behavior, permissions, or what happens if the file or line is not indexed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence of 16 words directly states the core function with no redundant information. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Lacks output schema, and description does not explain what the chunk contains or its format. No mention of index status or relationship to sibling tools, leaving gaps for an agent to understand full usage context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions already defining each input. The tool description adds only a summary of the two required parameters, which does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description explicitly states 'Read the indexed chunk' with specific inputs (file path and line), clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It differentiates from sibling tools like search and list_files by focusing on reading a chunk, but does not explicitly contrast them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search or list_files. No mention of prerequisites like index status or the need to call search first.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools