Find where a type or object is instantiated or referenced in a TwinCAT project. Locate all variables and mentions to understand usage.
Where a type/object is instantiated (variables of that type) and mentioned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| max_hits | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of search scope (whole project? single POU?), how results are bounded, or whether the lookup is exact or approximate.
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?
It is a single short fragment with no waste, so it is concise. But the terseness comes at the cost of under-specification rather than economy, and there is no structural front-loading of scope or constraints.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a code-intelligence lookup with 0% parameter coverage and no scope or usage guidance, the definition is too thin for an agent to invoke it reliably.
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, and it does not. Neither 'name' (fully-qualified symbol? simple identifier?) nor 'max_hits' (default 200, truncation behavior) is explained anywhere.
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?
The description does convey the concept of finding usages of a type/object ('where ... is instantiated ... and mentioned'), which is a find-references operation. However, it is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb and no differentiation from siblings like proj_search, proj_resolve_symbol, proj_variables, or proj_call_graph, so an agent cannot readily tell which lookup tool to pick.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., whether the project must be loaded/scanned first). Usage is only weakly implied by the fragment itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.