Retrieve source code for a pipeline step using its step run ID. Get step implementation details directly from ZenML to inspect or debug.
Get the code for a step.
Args:
step_run_id: The ID of the step to retrieve
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| step_run_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get the code' and provides no information about read-only nature, error conditions, or what happens if the step run ID is invalid. It doesn't state whether the operation is safe or has side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
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 very concise—two sentences with no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter, though it might be under-specified rather than concise. The structure is front-loaded with the main action, but the parameter description is minimal.
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?
Given the simplicity (one required parameter), one might expect a basic description to suffice, but there is no output schema information provided, no error handling, and no details about what 'code' means (e.g., source code, generated code, etc.). With no annotations and minimal description, the tool is incomplete for an agent to use confidently.
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?
The description includes a line for step_run_id: 'The ID of the step to retrieve', which adds a minimal semantic hint beyond the schema's property name and type. However, schema description coverage is 0% and the description doesn't explain the format or constraints of the ID, nor how to obtain it. It barely compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
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 clear action ('Get the code') and resource ('for a step'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_step_logs (logs vs code). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the ZenML pipeline context, but the sibling names imply it. Slight ambiguity about what 'step' refers to, but given the parameter step_run_id, it's understandable.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over get_step_logs or other resource tools. The description simply states the function without any contextual use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.