Retrieve a symbol's source body, member list, and documentation from an indexed Java or Python repository, using a qualified name or path:line.
Source of one symbol: body for methods/functions, member list for types, plus doc. symbol: 'Order.add', a qualified name, or path:line. <= 2000 tokens.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | ||
| max_lines | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest of the burden and does add real context: the output shape depends on symbol kind and the response is capped at ~2000 tokens. It omits what happens on an unresolved symbol or how max_lines interacts with the cap, but the disclosed constraints are the useful ones.
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?
Extremely dense and front-loaded: the return behavior, input format, and token cap all land in three short fragments with zero filler. It is telegraphic rather than polished, but every clause carries 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?
With no output schema, the description responsibly sketches what comes back and notes the token budget. However, max_lines goes unexplained and ambiguity handling (unresolved or duplicate symbol) is absent, so it is only adequate for a lookup tool with hidden parameters.
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. It does add meaning for 'symbol' by giving accepted forms ('Order.add', qualified name, path:line), but says nothing about the second parameter, max_lines, leaving half the parameters undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb (retrieves source) and resource (one symbol) and even describes the return shape varying by symbol kind (body for methods, member list for types). It is distinguishable from search_symbols, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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 when-to-use guidance and no comparison against the obvious alternative, search_symbols. The accepted symbol formats ('Order.add', qualified name, path:line) describe input syntax rather than when this tool should be chosen over its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.