Find file-and-line locations for a question across named and related repositories, resolving service names to repos and locating tables, packages, paths, or symbols.
Where in the code is X? file:line hits in this repo, repos the question names, and related repos unless a literal answered; grep first, a deep index's symbols when built.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | ||
| question | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses some behavior: file:line output, search scope across this repo and named/related repos, grep-first execution, and deep-index symbol fallback when built. However, it leaves unclear what 'unless a literal answered' means, whether the tool is read-only, and what limits or failure modes apply.
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 sentence and front-loads the core question, which is good. But the remainder is densely compressed and cryptic, with fragments like 'unless a literal answered' and 'grep first, a deep index's symbols when built' that reduce readability rather than earn their place.
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?
The output schema exists, so return values do not need full explanation, but the tool still lacks essential context. It has no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and no sibling routing guidance, leaving an agent with too little information to call it confidently in a complex multi-repo code search environment.
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 two required parameters. It does not explain what format 'repo' expects, what kind of 'question' is accepted, or how the question's named repos interact with the repo parameter.
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 states a recognizable purpose: answering 'Where in the code is X?' with file:line hits across this repo, named repos, and related repos. That is more specific than the generic name 'query', though it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings such as find_across or search_org.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor when not to use it. 'grep first, a deep index's symbols when built' describes internal search behavior, not selection guidance for an agent choosing among the listed sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.