get_symbol_contextReturn bounded definition/callers/callees context; references or impact request paid depth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| path | No | ||
| files | No | ||
| include | No | ||
| offsets | No | ||
| snapshot | No | ||
| per_section_limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schema | Yes | ||
| symbol | Yes | ||
| include | Yes | ||
| sections | Yes | ||
| snapshot | Yes | ||
| per_section_limit | Yes | ||
| paid_sections_requested | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / oneOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "required": [
+ "files"
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "required": [
+ "snapshot"
+ ]
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / files / descriptionRemoved value: -"Authorized JavaScript/TypeScript source files for this single request. Required every call — there is no server-side index."Input schema / properties / files / items / properties / content / descriptionRemoved value: -"Full source text for that path. Only files included here are analyzed; the server does not read a repository from disk."Input schema / properties / files / items / properties / path / descriptionRemoved value: -"Workspace-relative JS/TS path for this request (e.g. \"src/app.ts\"). No absolute paths, no \"..\" segments, no backslashes."Input schema / properties / include / descriptionRemoved value: -"Context sections to return. Omit for the free default: definition, callers, and callees. references and impact are paid-depth sections."Input schema / properties / kind / descriptionRemoved value: -"Optional compiler syntax kind hint used during symbol resolution."Input schema / properties / name / descriptionRemoved value: -"Symbol name, fragment, or exact compiler symbol id to resolve before gathering context."Input schema / properties / offsets / descriptionRemoved value: -"Per-section continuation offsets from a previous response. Omitted sections start at zero."Input schema / properties / path / descriptionRemoved value: -"Optional path ranking hint used during symbol resolution."Input schema / properties / per_section_limit / descriptionRemoved value: -"Maximum rows returned per included section. Default 4 is evidence-backed to bound the p95 tail."Input schema / properties / snapshotAdded value: +{
+ "maxLength": 100,
+ "minLength": 20,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "files",
- "name"
-]New value: +[
+ "name"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's safety burden is low. It does add 'bounded' context and a depth/cost hint, but 'paid depth' is unclear and there is no explanation of how depth limits, offsets, or section limits behave, leaving a significant behavior gap.
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 short, which is good for conciseness, but it is cryptic rather than compact. The semicolon-separated second clause is not self-explanatory and appears to compress important detail into an unclear phrase, so the structure does not earn its place.
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?
For a tool with 8 parameters, a nested files/snapshot oneOf, and a large output schema, a single ambiguous sentence is not enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke it. Even though an output schema exists, the description leaves the invocation modes, selection criteria, and depth semantics unresolved.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters, but it only loosely maps to the include categories (definition, callers, callees, references, impact). It does not clarify the files-vs-snapshot oneOf, required name, kind/path behavior, offsets, or per_section_limit, so most of the 8 parameters remain semantically uncovered.
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 first clause, 'Return bounded definition/callers/callees context', does name a clear verb and resource, which is helpful. But the second clause, 'references or impact request paid depth', is ambiguous about whether references/impact are included, cost extra, or require a depth parameter, and no distinction from sibling tools like get_definition or find_references is drawn.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this composite tool rather than get_definition, find_references, analyze_impact, or query_code. The phrase 'request paid depth' hints at some trade-off or precondition, but it is not actionable and no alternatives or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.