Retrieve a script's full execution phase map to understand internal logic flow without reading raw code. Use it to trace phases from start to finish and target the exact logic you need.
Retrieve detailed internal logic execution phase map for a script from start to finish without reading raw code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | 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, the description has to carry behavioral disclosure. It makes clear this is a read-style retrieval of a derived phase map rather than raw code, but it does not cover freshness, supported script types, failure behavior, or whether analysis has side effects.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes: the action, the resource, the scope, and the reason to prefer this over reading raw code.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be repeated. For a one-parameter tool this is close to sufficient, but the lack of annotations and parameter documentation leaves gaps around supported inputs and behavioral expectations.
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%, so the description must compensate for the lone file_path parameter. It only implies that the path refers to a script; it does not clarify format, relative vs absolute paths, supported extensions, or what happens if the file cannot be analyzed.
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 verb ("Retrieve") and a specific resource ("detailed internal logic execution phase map for a script"), and it clarifies the value by saying this is done "without reading raw code." It is distinguishable from most sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
Usage is implied: call this when you need to understand a script's execution phases without inspecting raw source. There is no explicit when-not guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools such as memory_find_by_intent or memory_batch_inspect.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.