Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vs-token-safer

vs-token-safer

by JSungMin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

hover

Retrieve the type or signature of a symbol at a given line and column in a source file, using the language-server index to return concise hover details without needing the file open.

Instructions

Type/signature of the symbol at a 0-based position (hover) — a few lines, no file open.

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "line": "<line>",
      "character": "<character>"
    },
    "name": "hover"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lineYes0-based line.
pathYesSource file.
backendNo
characterYes0-based column.
projectPathNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.37.3
    • removedInput schema / properties / backend / description
      Removed value: -"Backend override; auto-detected."
    • changedInput schema / properties / character / description
      Previous value: -"0-based character/column."New value: +"0-based column."
    • removedInput schema / properties / projectPath / description
      Removed value: -"Project root (cwd)."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.29.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / backend / description
      Previous value: -"clangd|roslyn|typescript|pyright (auto)."New value: +"Backend override; auto-detected."
    • changedInput schema / properties / projectPath / description
      Previous value: -"Project root (default cwd)."New value: +"Project root (cwd)."
  3. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / backend / description
      Added value: +"clangd|roslyn|typescript|pyright (auto)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / projectPath / description
      Added value: +"Project root (default cwd)."
  4. First observed

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions the tool does not open a file, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or error behavior (e.g., when symbol not found). Very limited transparency.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the core purpose. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is far too brief. It does not explain what 'type/signature' means, how results are formatted, or what happens on errors. Incomplete for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 60% (3/5 parameters described). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning; it only restates that position is 0-based, which is already in the schema. No compensation for the two undocumented parameters (projectPath, backend).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it retrieves type/signature at a position (hover). It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning it returns only a few lines and does not open a file, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like goto_definition or read_symbol. The description implies it is for quick lookup without opening a file, but no explicit conditions or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools