Skip to main content
Glama
turbyho

fw-context-mcp

by turbyho
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_class_members

Retrieve all methods, fields, and nested types of a C/C++ class or struct, grouped by kind with signatures and source lines.

Instructions

Return all methods, fields, and nested types of a C/C++ class/struct — libclang-powered member table. Groups members by kind (method, constructor, field, enum, etc.), distinguishing class members from free functions across the entire codebase.

Members are grouped by kind (method, constructor, destructor, field, enum, typedef, class, struct). Each member includes its signature, virtual flags, and source line. Works for C structs too — they just won't have methods.

For inheritance hierarchy use get_inheritance_chain. For individual method details use get_symbol_context.

Read-only. No side effects.

Args: class_name: Class or struct name. E.g. 'ModemManager' or 'comm::MODEM'. project_root: Project root. Auto-detected if omitted. project: Project name or project_id — call list_projects to get them. Use it to ask about a project that is not the project of the current directory. It is an alternative to project_root, which takes a root path. Give one of the two, not both. variant: Build variant (multi-build project). Omit to use default_variant. One query answers for ONE build. image: Sysbuild image within the variant. Required when the variant holds several: each image is a separate program.

Returns: dict: {name, qualified_name, kind, file, line, members: {kind: [{name, qualified_name, signature, is_virtual, is_pure_virtual, line}]}, member_count}

On failure the dict holds only ``error`` with the reason.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
imageNoSysbuild image within the variant. Required when the variant holds several: each image is a separate program.
projectNoProject name or project_id — call list_projects to get them. Use it to ask about a project that is not the project of the current directory. It is an alternative to project_root, which takes a root path. Give one of the two, not both.
variantNoBuild variant (multi-build project). Omit to use default_variant. One query answers for ONE build.
class_nameYesClass or struct name. E.g. 'ModemManager' or 'the Mbed project::ZMODEM'.
project_rootNoProject root. Auto-detected if omitted. This field also accepts a project name or a project_id, but project is the clear field for those.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.32.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / class_name / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • changedInput schema / properties / image / description
      Previous value: -"Sysbuild image name within the variant (multi-project). Omit for all images of the variant."New value: +"Sysbuild image within the variant. Required when the variant holds several: each image is a separate program."
    • changedInput schema / properties / variant / description
      Previous value: -"Build variant name (multi-project). Omit to use default_variant or fail-closed. Use '*' for all variants."New value: +"Build variant (multi-build project). Omit to use default_variant. One query answers for ONE build."
  2. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.30.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedInput schema / properties / class_name / description
      Previous value: -"Class or struct name. E.g. 'ModemManager' or 'zbox::ZMODEM'."New value: +"Class or struct name. E.g. 'ModemManager' or 'the Mbed project::ZMODEM'."
    • addedInput schema / properties / project
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Project name or project_id — call list_projects to get them. Use it to ask about a project that is not the project of the current directory. It is an alternative to project_root, which takes a root path. Give one of the two, not both.",
+  "title": "Project"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / project_root / description
      Previous value: -"Project root. Auto-detected if omitted."New value: +"Project root. Auto-detected if omitted. This field also accepts a project name or a project_id, but project is the clear field for those."
  3. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.25.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / image
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Sysbuild image name within the variant (multi-project). Omit for all images of the variant.",
+  "title": "Image"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / variant
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Build variant name (multi-project). Omit to use default_variant or fail-closed. Use '*' for all variants.",
+  "title": "Variant"
+}
  4. Addedv0.7.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does 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 'Read-only. No side effects.' and describes the return dict structure including an error field on failure. It also mentions that members are grouped by kind, which is a behavioral trait. However, it doesn't explicitly state what happens for a class that doesn't exist beyond the generic error, nor does it address potential size or performance considerations, so it's not fully exhaustive but quite transparent.

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?

The description is longer than a simple one-liner but is well-structured with clear sections: purpose, grouping behavior, alternatives, arguments, and return format. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides necessary detail without redundancy. Each sentence earns its place, making it appropriately sized for a tool with 5 parameters and a nested return structure.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description covers the return schema explicitly, including the error case, and explains the grouping logic. It also provides routing to sibling tools for different needs. Given that there is no output schema, the description fully compensates by detailing the dict structure. For a C/C++ codebase tool with this complexity, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by giving concrete examples for class_name, explaining the project vs project_root relationship with 'Give one of the two, not both,' and clarifying that variant and image are for multi-build projects. This adds meaningful usage semantics that the schema alone doesn't convey.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return all methods, fields, and nested types of a C/C++ class/struct'. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming alternatives like get_inheritance_chain and get_symbol_context, and clarifies it works for C structs too. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use alternative tools: 'For inheritance hierarchy use get_inheritance_chain. For individual method details use get_symbol_context.' It also notes the tool works for C structs, implying when it is appropriate. It gives clear context and exclusions, so an agent knows when to pick this tool over others.

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