Index a code symbol as belonging to a service.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | Yes | Source language, e.g. 'python', 'swift', 'typescript', 'rust'. | |
| npub | No | ||
| repo_name | Yes | Repository name. | |
| dpop_token | No | ||
| symbol_fqn | Yes | Fully-qualified symbol name (per-language normalized). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations; description provides no behavioral details such as idempotency, destructiveness, authentication requirements, or side effects. Fails completely to add value beyond the minimal purpose.
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?
Single sentence is concise but underspecified. Lacks essential details; not well-structured for agent comprehension.
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?
With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. No explanation of return values, side effects, or prerequisites.
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?
Schema covers 60% of parameters; description adds no additional meaning for any parameter. Parameters 'npub' and 'dpop_token' lack schema descriptions and are not explained in the description.
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?
States verb 'Index' and resource 'code symbol', specifying association with a service. Adequately clear but does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'cypher_anchor_symbol' or 'cypher_bind_capability_to_symbol'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions or context provided. Agent cannot determine appropriate scenarios.
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.