SwiftKG MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

find_node

Search a Swift codebase knowledge graph for functions, classes, or protocols by name when the stable ID is unknown. Enter a name and optional kind filter to retrieve matching node details.

Instructions

Find graph nodes by name without knowing their full stable ID.

Case-insensitive match against name and qualname. Use when you know a function or class name from reading code and need its stable ID.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "find_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	No
`name`	Yes
`limit`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.1Sep 15, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / limit

Added value: +{
+  "default": 100,
+  "title": "Limit",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses case-insensitive matching against name and qualname, an optional kind filter, and a JSON array return shape. It does not describe result ordering, hard limits, or exact-match semantics, but it provides meaningful behavior beyond 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 tightly structured and front-loaded: main behavior first, use case second, then parameter and return notes. Every sentence contributes information, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The description provides enough to select and invoke the tool correctly, especially given the output schema exists and supports the return description. The main missing piece is the limit parameter's behavior, and there is no explicit note about when to prefer a sibling tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents name and kind well, including example kind values, but it omits the limit parameter entirely even though the schema exposes a default of 100. This is a clear gap for a parameter that may cap result size.

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?

The description opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'Find graph nodes by name without knowing their full stable ID,' which clearly distinguishes this from stable-ID-based lookups like get_node. It also specifies the matching behavior and the intended use case of resolving a known function or class name to a stable ID.

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?

The description gives an explicit trigger: 'Use when you know a function or class name from reading code and need its stable ID.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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