fn_ora_mcp

get_package_source

Retrieve Oracle package source code by providing the package name. Optionally specify a function or procedure name to return only that object, or omit for the full package spec and body.

Instructions

Oracle 패키지 소스 조회.

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": {
      "package_name": "<package_name>"
    },
    "name": "get_package_source"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`package_name`	Yes	패키지명 (대소문자 무관)
`object_name`	No	함수 또는 프로시저명. 생략 시 SPEC + BODY 전체 반환.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 24, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication. The absence of any behavioral details forces the agent to rely solely on the tool name.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely brief (one short phrase) but sacrifices clarity. It is under-specified rather than concise, failing to provide necessary context.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what the tool returns (source code of package) or any side effects, leaving the agent with insufficient understanding.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the two parameters.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Oracle 패키지 소스 조회' (Oracle package source query) states a general purpose but does not use a specific verb+resource. It fails to distinguish from siblings like list_package_objects (listing objects) and search_packages (searching), leaving the tool's unique role unclear.

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 usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor any context for appropriate invocation.

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

Deploy Server