Retrieve GitHub, mail, IRC, and Delving cites for a path or symbol. Mail/IRC rarely include paths.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Source path to search (e.g. src/validation.cpp). | |
| repo | No | Optional owner/repo token to include in the query. | |
| query | No | Optional extra search text. | |
| symbol | No | Optional function or type name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the exact sources queried and the limitation that Mail/IRC rarely include paths. This goes beyond the annotations, though it omits any indication of result shape.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler. The resources and scope appear in the first sentence, and the caveat earns its place in the second.
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 read-only multi-source lookup with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description covers the essentials. The main gaps are lack of sibling routing and no description of what a returned cite looks like, so it is adequate but not complete.
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?
The input schema documents all four parameters with meaningful descriptions, so the description does not need to repeat them. Mentioning 'path or symbol' aligns with the schema but adds no new semantics about combinations or defaults, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and names concrete resources (GitHub, mail, IRC, and Delving cites) plus the search subject (path or symbol), making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search or find_incident, so it stops just short of full clarity.
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 is given on when to choose this tool over its siblings. The only contextual note, 'Mail/IRC rarely include paths,' is a result-availability caveat rather than an invocation condition, leaving the agent without explicit when/when-not routing.
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.