Find who calls or references a given symbol by name, returning only direct incoming dependencies.
Incoming deps: who calls/uses X, direct references only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| project | No | Project name/path (default: active). | |
| compress | No | Compact rows (default true). | |
| max_results | No | 0=all. | |
| max_total_chars | No | Default 50000. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description's one additional behavioral fact is 'direct references only', which discloses the transitive-depth limit and is useful, but it says nothing about result shape or scaling/limits.
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 compact fragment that front-loads the key information with zero filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than padded, so it earns its brevity but doesn't maximize the space.
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 and a required 'name' param undocumented in both schema and description, the definition leaves gaps. A 'direct references only' clause helps, but the return shape (callers/referrers list) is never described, so an agent must probe to learn the output.
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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description implies the required 'name' parameter is a symbol ('who calls/uses X'), partially compensating for that parameter having no schema description, but adds no format or example detail beyond what the schema provides.
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 gives a specific verb-scope and resource: incoming dependencies, with the qualifier 'who calls/uses X' that makes the direction unambiguous. It implicitly contrasts with the outgoing-dependency sibling get_dependencies, though it never names it, so differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.
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?
The phrase 'direct references only' scopes the search to non-transitive references, which is a form of usage guidance. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternatives (e.g. get_dependencies for the reverse direction, get_call_chain for transitive paths), leaving routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.