Locate where a symbol is declared in code repositories using name, qualified name, prefix, or substring. Narrow results by kind, repo, and path.
Where a symbol is declared, by name, qualified name, prefix or substring. Narrow with kind, repo and path_prefix.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| mode | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| repo | No | ||
| view | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| path_prefix | No | ||
| include_derived | No | ||
| response_format | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no meaningful annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a search/lookup operation with flexible name matching and filters, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, result shape, or index/search limitations.
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?
Two compact sentences lead with the tool's purpose and then list the narrowing options, with no filler or repetition. Each phrase adds information.
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 10 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this short description leaves important call behavior unspecified, including pagination, output formatting, and derived-symbol handling. It is a strong summary but not complete enough for an agent to configure the tool confidently in all cases.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add parameter meaning. It does explain the required name parameter's matching flexibility and maps kind, repo, and path_prefix as narrowing filters, but it leaves mode, view, limit, cursor, include_derived, and response_format unexplained.
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 opens with the core action, finding where a symbol is declared, and specifies the matching modes (name, qualified name, prefix, substring). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_references (where used) and get_symbol (retrieve symbol details).
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 states the intended scenario (locate a declaration site) and how to narrow results with kind, repo, and path_prefix. It does not name sibling alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, but the declaration-focused wording supplies clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.