Connapse

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

code_references

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find files that use or mention a code symbol, ordered by strongest evidence like calls, inheritance, or imports, with options for callers, subtypes, or all uses.

Instructions

Find the files that use a symbol, best evidence first: files the code index links to it (a call, a base type, an import) with the lines, then files whose text names it. kind="calls" for callers only, "inherits" for subtypes only, "all" (default) for every use and mention. Name the symbol as for code_find_symbol ("Ledger.Post"); qualify it further when the name is common.

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": {
      "containerId": "<containerId>",
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "code_references"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	No	"all" (default), "calls" or "inherits"
`limit`	No	At most this many files (1-200). Default 20
`symbol`	Yes	The symbol, e.g. "Ledger.Post"
`containerId`	Yes	Container or source ID or name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.4.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: results rank indexed links (calls, base types, imports) ahead of text matches and include lines for indexed evidence. It does not discuss limit truncation or result pagination, but those are covered by the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core action and ranking strategy first, then explains kind filters and symbol naming. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler.

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?

For a simple read-only reference lookup with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains result ordering and evidence categories even without an output schema. A minor gap is that it does not mention the effect of the limit parameter on returned files.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what "calls" and "inherits" actually filter to and by giving symbol-naming guidance such as qualifying common names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: "Find the files that use a symbol." It also distinguishes two evidence classes, indexed links and text mentions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this reference lookup from sibling tools like code_find_symbol or code_impact beyond referencing code_find_symbol for naming.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives useful guidance for choosing kind values ("calls" for callers only, "inherits" for subtypes only, "all" by default). It also says to name the symbol as for code_find_symbol and to qualify common names. It does not state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or any when-not conditions.

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