token-pilot

call_tree

Reveal transitive call chains from leaf helpers to entry points for a function. Use to debug, assess refactor impact, and verify code reachability.

Instructions

Recursive depth-N call hierarchy for a function. Shows who calls who transitively — complements find_usages (flat one-level refs) by revealing full chains from leaf helpers to entry points. Use for debugging, refactor impact, and verifying reachability.

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": {
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "call_tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`symbol`	Yes	Function / method name, unqualified (e.g. `fetchUser`).
`depth`	No	Walk-up depth. Default 3, max 6.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.47.0Jun 24, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses recursive behavior, depth constraint (default 3, max 6), and transitive nature. However, does not explicitly confirm read-only status, performance implications, or side effects, which would be expected for a recursive tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then behavioral detail, then use cases. No redundant phrases; every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should clarify what the tool returns. It mentions 'call hierarchy' and 'full chains' but not format (tree, list?). Otherwise complete for selection: depth limit, relationship to sibling, use cases.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so schema already describes parameters. Description adds context about depth (walk-up, default, max) and purpose (leaf helpers to entry points), but this is marginal beyond schema. 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?

Description clearly states the tool generates a recursive depth-N call hierarchy for a function, distinguishing it from the sibling find_usages (flat one-level refs). Specific verb 'shows' and resource 'call hierarchy' with transitive property.

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?

States specific use cases (debugging, refactor impact, verifying reachability) and explicitly complements find_usages. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond the one mentioned.

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