Skip to main content
Glama

Symvanta

by com.symvanta

bundle

Read-onlyIdempotent

Run up to 10 independent tool calls in parallel in one round-trip. Calls share the bundle-level project/repository scope unless a call sets its own args.repository, which scopes that call alone. Supported: locate (args.mode text|symbol|semantic|file|config, not codebase), relate (kind:callers only), find_node, list_file_symbols, find_http_route. Returns results in input order; unsupported tool names return {error}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
callsYesCalls to run in parallel; each uses the bundle's project/repository scope unless its args.repository names another one.
feedbackNoOptional: report how a previous answer worked out; piggybacks on any call.
commitShaNoPin reads to one indexed revision (7-40 hex). Graph tools error with revision_not_indexed when it is not an indexed revision of the scoped repository, or revision_not_servable when that revision's graph was superseded by a later reindex, and echo the revision served back as commitSha; source ops read git objects, so any commit works there. Exception: a kept revision (revisions rows flagged architectureSnapshot) still serves map view:"architecture" as a preserved snapshot.
projectIdNoProject id from init/list_projects. Omit for the active project.
repositoryNoRepository full name, e.g. "owner/repo". Omit when the project has one repository.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses parallel execution, shared bundle-level scope with per-call repository overrides, input-order result ordering, and error objects for unsupported tool names. It also constrains valid modes and kinds, giving the agent a clear behavioral model. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but well-structured: the core capability is front-loaded, and each subsequent clause adds a necessary constraint or behavioral fact. No sentence is wasted, and all key operational details are packed into a compact form.

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 nested batching tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: call limit, supported tools, scoping rules, result ordering, and error behavior. It leaves some details to the schema, such as feedback and commitSha semantics, and does not describe per-tool result shapes, but those are reasonable omissions for a wrapper tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter-level semantics by explaining how repository scope applies at the bundle level versus per-call args.repository, and by enumerating valid combinations of args.mode and args.kind for supported tools. This goes beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 states a precise action: running up to 10 independent tool calls in parallel in one round-trip, and it enumerates the specific supported tools and their constraints. This clearly distinguishes the bundle tool from sibling individual tools like locate or relate, making its role as a batching wrapper obvious.

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 gives clear conditions for use: calls must be independent, at most 10, and only listed tools are supported. It also provides exclusions such as locate mode 'not codebase' and relate kind 'callers only'. However, it does not explicitly instruct the agent to fall back to individual sibling tools when a call is dependent or unsupported.

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

All Symvanta 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools generally target distinct operations—repository attachment, symbol resolution, graph traversal, source access, indexing health—and the detailed routing notes reduce ambiguity. A few pairs still overlap in intent (quick_lookup vs locate symbol, context vs ask_codebase), so it is not perfectly unambiguous.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and readable, but the set mixes verb_noun patterns like add_repository and list_projects with single-word nouns/verbs like context, history, map, relate, and source, plus one acronym (adr). There is no predictable convention across the full surface, though individual names are clear.

Tool Count3/5

25 tools is at the high end for a single MCP server and falls in the 'feels heavy' range. The breadth is justified by the code-intelligence/query domain, but the selection surface is large for an agent to navigate efficiently.

Completeness4/5

The code indexing, search, graph query, source access, history, ADR, test lookup, and scope estimation needs are well covered. Minor gaps remain—no detach/remove repository, no ADR content editing, and source access is gated by an add-on—but these are workable.

Resources