Skip to main content
Glama

xmp4 — Semantic code knowledge for your stack

by ai.example4

xmp4_outline

Get outline (all symbols) for a file in a project.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number (1-based, default 1)
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_pathYesFile path
page_sizeNoResults per page (default 20, max 100)
output_formatNoOutput format: Compact (default) or Verbose

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, how pagination works, what the outline format contains, or how project resolution behaves. The only behavioral hint is that it returns 'all symbols', which is scant.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded, stating the action and resource immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description gives only a minimal statement of purpose. It lacks any explanation of return value structure, pagination behavior, or relationship to sibling tools, making it incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, including detailed semantics for the 'project' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the schema already provides thorough documentation, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get outline (all symbols) for a file in a project' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('outline for a file'), with 'all symbols' clarifying scope and distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual symbols or relationships. It clearly conveys the tool's function.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like xmp4_symbol_at or xmp4_hierarchy. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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