Retrieve source lines surrounding each usage reference to see the exact code context at the call site. Request this when the surrounding code matters.
The source lines around each usage, for references you already have from usageReferences - pass those rows back in. One more backend call and a much larger answer, so ask for it when the call site itself matters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| references | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: an extra round trip, a substantially larger response, and dependency on previously fetched usageReferences rows. It does not mention limits or exact snippet sizes, but these are not critical for this simple read-only tool.
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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose appears first, followed by input guidance and a cost/usage note. Every sentence contributes useful information and there is no redundant filler.
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?
For a simple one-parameter, read-only tool without an output schema, the description gives enough context: what the response contains, where the input comes from, and when the additional cost is justified. The only minor gap is the lack of detail about how the snippet output is formatted or bounded.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does by explaining that the sole 'references' parameter should be populated with the rows obtained from usageReferences. It stops short of specifying the exact row shape or required fields, but for a single-parameter tool this is adequate guidance.
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 exactly what the tool returns: source lines around each usage, scoped to references already obtained from usageReferences. It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like usageReferences or whereUsedMethod by framing it as a follow-up operation.
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?
It explicitly says to ask for it 'when the call site itself matters' and warns that it is 'one more backend call and a much larger answer', implying it should not be called reflexively. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or give a when-not condition, but the usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.