Skip to main content
Glama
Mibayy

token-savior

by Mibayy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

insert_near_symbol

Insert content before or after an indexed code symbol to add code at exact structural boundaries, avoiding raw text searches.

Instructions

Insert content before or after an indexed symbol.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNoAlias de `content`.
nameNoAlias de `symbol_name`.
sourceNoAlias de `content`.
contentNo
projectNoProject name/path (default: active).
positionNo'before' or 'after' (default after).
file_pathNo
new_sourceNoAlias de `content`.
symbol_nameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv4.20.0
    • addedInput schema / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "symbol_name",
+      "content"
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "symbol_name",
+      "source"
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "symbol_name",
+      "new_source"
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "symbol_name",
+      "code"
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "name",
+      "content"
+    ]
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / code
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias de `content`. ",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / name
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias de `symbol_name`. ",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / new_source
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias de `content`. ",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / source
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias de `content`. ",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "symbol_name",
-  "content"
-]
  2. Addedv4.0.0
  3. Removedv1.0.2
  4. Addedv1.0.1

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that profile — it neither describes what happens to existing content, nor the before/after default, nor any project-scoping behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded, with no filler — structurally clean. However, for a 9-parameter aliased mutation tool the size reflects under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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?

The tool accepts 9 parameters with a five-branch anyOf requirement structure and four aliases of content, and the description explains none of it. With no output schema and no annotation detail beyond hints, an agent is left guessing how to satisfy the required-argument branches and what position/project defaults do.

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 coverage is only 67%, and the description mentions no parameter explicitly. Half of the schema's own descriptions are Spanish-language alias notes (code/source/new_source = content), and key fields like symbol_name, content, and file_path have no description anywhere. The phrase 'before or after' loosely gestures at position and 'indexed symbol' at symbol_name, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap or explain the anyOf alias pattern.

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 names a specific verb (Insert) and resource (content before or after an indexed symbol), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling editors like replace_symbol_source, edit_lines_in_symbol, and move_symbol. It does not explicitly name or route against those alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no reference to alternative tools. An agent must infer that this is the correct choice for inserting near a symbol simply from the name and one-line description.

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