Skip to main content
Glama

xmp4 — Semantic code knowledge for your stack

by ai.example4

xmp4_symbol_at

LSP-style position→symbol lookup. Given (file_path, line, column) returns the symbol whose occurrence covers that cursor position. line is 1-based; column is 0-based. Use after xmp4_outline/xmp4_view when you know coordinates and want the canonical symbol.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lineNoLine number (1-based)
columnNoColumn number (0-based, default 0 = beginning of line)
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 inside the project, relative to repo root

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the coordinate conventions (1-based line, 0-based column) and the core behavior (returns symbol covering position). This adds meaningful context beyond the 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the key phrase 'LSP-style position→symbol lookup.' Every sentence earns its place—purpose, coordinate details, and usage context are delivered without waste.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, coordinate semantics, and a usage scenario. It doesn't explain return format or error cases, but the core lookup behavior is sufficiently specified for a straightforward tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description restates the coordinate bases already present in the schema (line 1-based, column 0-based) but doesn't add new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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: 'LSP-style position→symbol lookup' with a specific verb and resource, explaining it returns the symbol covering a given cursor position. It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing coordinate-based lookup and the specific use case after xmp4_outline/xmp4_view.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use after xmp4_outline/xmp4_view when you know coordinates and want the canonical symbol,' providing clear context for when to use it. It doesn't mention explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the situational guidance is strong enough for a 4.

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