Trace an ADS symbol path (e.g. MAIN.fbFill.fbValve.bOpen) through FB and STRUCT type definitions to find the file and line where each hop is declared.
Map an ADS symbol path (MAIN.fbFill.fbValve.bOpen) to the file:line where each hop is declared, following variable types through FB/STRUCT definitions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes |
| 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 safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that it follows variable types through FB/STRUCT definitions, but it does not disclose limitations, error behavior, or performance characteristics.
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?
The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core mapping action and includes the type-following behavior without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool.
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?
Given that an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description supplies enough to call the tool correctly: the input format is exampled and the resolution behavior is described. It lacks usage guidance, but the core invocation requirements are complete.
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 for the single symbol parameter. It provides an example format (MAIN.fbFill.fbValve.bOpen) and clarifies that the input is an ADS symbol path, which is helpful, but it does not define full syntax rules or edge cases.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it maps an ADS symbol path to file:line declaration locations and follows variable types through FB/STRUCT definitions. This clearly differentiates it from simple symbol lookup siblings, but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or explain when this is preferable.
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?
The description explains what the tool does but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives among the many sibling tools such as ads_symbol_info, proj_variables, or infosys_declaration. The agent must infer usage context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.