ts-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Incoming Calls

provideCallHierarchyIncomingCalls

Read-only

Find all functions and methods that call a target function at a given position, answering 'who calls this?' for dependency analysis.

Instructions

Returns all functions/methods that call the function at the given position. Answers 'who calls this?'

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "file": "<file>",
      "line": "<line>",
      "offset": "<offset>"
    },
    "name": "provideCallHierarchyIncomingCalls"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`file`	Yes	File path (absolute or relative to cwd)
`line`	Yes	1-based line number
`offset`	Yes	1-based character offset on the line

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. However, it adds no further behavioral context (e.g., whether results are exhaustive, include cross-file calls, or depth). With annotations covering the safety profile, the minimal added context is adequate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. Every word earns its place; no wasted content.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, no output schema, and read-only annotation, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (functions/methods that call the given function). It could benefit from mentioning the result format (e.g., file, line), but is generally complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke the 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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (file, line, offset). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns all functions/methods that call the function at a given position, answering 'who calls this?'. It uses specific verb 'returns' and resource, effectively distinguishing from the sibling 'provideCallHierarchyOutgoingCalls'.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool ('who calls this?') but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools like 'references' or 'definition'. The context is clear for typical usage, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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