Jump to code definitions, find references, or inspect hover info at a file position using the language server, without modifying files.
Navigate (definition/references/hover) via language server. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| line | No | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| column | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers only 'Read-only'. It omits whether a language server must already be running (relevant given the lsp_status sibling), how definitions/references/hover are resolved, and any latency or initialization caveats for a language-server-backed call.
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 clauses, front-loaded with the verb and the modes, with no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves useful detail on the table rather than being wasteful.
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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it never explains return shapes for the three modes, prerequisites (server running), or the coordinate parameters. An agent could invoke it but must guess at critical call details.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only echoes the action enum values already present in the schema. The required 'path' and, more importantly, the line/column coordinates (instantiation base, cursor semantics, when they are required) are left entirely unexplained.
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 a specific verb (navigate) and the three modes (definition/references/hover) executed via a language server, which is clear enough for an agent to know what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like lsp_symbols or ast_search, leaving the boundary between them implicit.
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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives, despite several overlapping siblings (lsp_symbols, lsp_diagnostics, ast_search). The only usage signal is the terse 'Read-only' tag, which indicates safety but not selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.