Locate where a function or class is defined across a project using its name and optional root, so you can jump directly to the source.
Find where a function or class is defined across the project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| root | No | . |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no indication of read-only nature, whether results are exact vs fuzzy, how multiple matches or missing definitions are reported, or what 'the project' resolves to. The only behavioral fact conveyed is the search scope.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup, though it is arguably under-specified rather than concise.
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 explained, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description should do more. The 'root' parameter and the name-matching behavior are undocumented anywhere the agent can see.
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 both parameters, yet neither 'name' nor 'root' is mentioned. It never clarifies whether 'name' is a bare symbol name or fully qualified, nor what 'root' (default '.') controls.
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?
States a specific verb ('Find where ... is defined') with the resource type ('a function or class') and scope ('across the project'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_symbols, semantic_search, or search, which an agent must choose between.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus list_symbols, search, or semantic_search, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., indexing or project root expectations). The agent is left to infer that this is the precise-symbol-lookup variant of the nearby tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.