Retrieve a symbol’s package, signature, visibility, and line range from a code graph by stable key or by repository, path, and qualified name.
One symbol's package, signature, visibility and line range, by stable key or by repository, path and qualified name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| repository | No | ||
| stable_key | No | ||
| qualified_name | 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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the returned symbol data and the two lookup modes, but it does not disclose behavior for ambiguous matches, missing symbols, or precedence when multiple parameters are provided. Given the read-only annotation, this is acceptable but not thorough.
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 a single dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the returned data before the lookup modes. Every phrase adds relevant information and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.
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?
With no output schema, five optional parameters, and eleven sibling tools, the description is thin on operational context. It does not explain response_format, valid parameter combinations, ambiguity/error behavior, or how get_symbol relates to find_symbol and get_source, so an agent receives insufficient guidance for reliable invocation.
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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does map stable_key to one lookup mode and repository, path, qualified_name to another, adding meaning beyond bare schema names. However, response_format is left unexplained, and with no required parameters the agent cannot be certain which parameter combinations are valid or whether the modes are mutually exclusive.
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 identifies a specific action ('get'), a specific resource ('one symbol'), and the returned metadata (package, signature, visibility, line range). It also distinguishes the lookup style from search-oriented siblings by mentioning exact retrieval via stable key or repository/path/qualified name, though it does not explicitly contrast it with a sibling tool.
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 explicit guidance is given about when to use get_symbol instead of siblings such as find_symbol, find_references, or get_source. The description implies an exact-lookup use case but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.