patchwork-os

findReferences

Read-only

Locate all references to a symbol in code by specifying file path, line, and column number. Uses VS Code LSP for accurate results.

Instructions

Find all references to a symbol at a given position using VS Code LSP.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "filePath": "<filePath>",
      "line": "<line>",
      "column": "<column>"
    },
    "name": "findReferences"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`line`	Yes	Line number (1-based)
`column`	Yes	Column (1-based)
`cursor`	No	Cursor from previous call's nextCursor. Omit on first call.
`filePath`	Yes	Workspace or absolute path

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint: true, meaning read-only. The description adds that it uses VS Code LSP, which implies potential blocking behavior but does not detail any additional traits like rate limits or state side effects. It does not contradict annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single sentence that conveys the essential purpose concisely. It is front-loaded with key information and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, and the schema covers parameters well, but no output schema is provided. The description could mention the return format (e.g., list of reference locations) or explain how the cursor parameter enables pagination. Currently, it is adequate but leaves some missing context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all four parameters (filePath, line, column, cursor). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb (Find), the resource (all references to a symbol at a given position), and the mechanism (using VS Code LSP). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like findImplementations (finds implementations) and findFiles (finds files).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like findImplementations or batchFindImplementations. It does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server