Skip to main content
Glama

xmp4 — Semantic code knowledge for your stack

by ai.example4

xmp4_callers

Find direct callers of a symbol in a project. Navigate step-by-step by calling xmp4_callers again on interesting results.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
docsNoInclude docs: none (default) | summary | full (xmp4_info only)
pageNoPage number (1-based, default 1; ignored by xmp4_info/xmp4_source)
projectYesProject id: 'repo/project' or 'repo/project/language'. Case-insensitive prefix match. Append '/Python'|'/CSharp'|'/Java'|etc. only to disambiguate multi-language projects (e.g. 'django/Django/Python' vs 'django/Django/JavaScript'). 1 match → proceeds; N → warning lists candidates; 0 → do NOT iterate guesses, call xmp4_projects(query=...) once then retry.
file_pathNoFile path to disambiguate
page_sizeNoResults per page (default 20, max 100)
symbol_nameYesSymbol name
output_formatNoOutput format: Compact (default) or Verbose

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (finding direct callers) and the ability to navigate iteratively. However, it does not describe the return format, pagination behavior, or potential edge cases (e.g., no callers, ambiguous symbols). The description is not misleading, but it lacks depth for a tool with no output schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence adds a valuable usage hint without redundancy. Every word earns its place; no fluff or irrelevant details.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential context for initiating the tool (find direct callers, iterate). However, it does not explain what the results look like, how to interpret them, or how options like output_format or pagination affect the results. This leaves some gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 7 parameters are already documented in the input schema with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find direct callers of a symbol in a project.' The verb 'Find' combined with the specific resource ('direct callers of a symbol') and scope ('in a project') makes it unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like xmp4_callees (which would be direct callees) and xmp4_usages (broader references).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context on how to use the tool iteratively: 'Navigate step-by-step by calling xmp4_callers again on interesting results.' This implies a workflow for exploring caller chains. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when *not* to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All xmp4 — Semantic code knowledge for your stack toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct purpose: callers vs callees vs usages vs tests_for are directionally different, grep vs search separates text from symbol queries, and outline/view/source/info each serve unique functions. No two tools clearly overlap.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a uniform 'xmp4_<snake_case_noun>' pattern with no mixed conventions or camelCase. The names are terse, descriptive, and predictably formatted.

Tool Count4/5

At 16 tools, this is slightly above the typical well-scoped range (3–15), but the breadth is justified by the comprehensive code-knowledge domain. Every tool covers a distinct feature, so the count feels reasonable rather than bloated.

Completeness5/5

The surface is remarkably complete for semantic code analysis: project discovery (xmp4_projects), symbol lookup (xmp4_search, xmp4_symbol_at, xmp4_info), navigation (xmp4_outline, xmp4_view, xmp4_source), relationship exploration (callers, callees, hierarchy, usages, tests_for), and supporting meta tools (guide, server, deps, grep). No obvious gaps exist for its stated purpose.

Resources