Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
patchwork-os

patchwork-os

by Oolab-labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

getInlayHints

Read-only

Get inline type annotations and parameter name hints for a given line range in a file. Supports languages like TypeScript and Rust.

Instructions

Inlay hints (inline type annotations, param names) for a line range. e.g. TS types, Rust lifetimes.

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": {
      "file": "<file>",
      "startLine": "<startLine>",
      "endLine": "<endLine>"
    },
    "name": "getInlayHints"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileYesWorkspace or absolute path
endLineYesLast line (1-based, inclusive)
startLineYesFirst line (1-based)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. It adds value by explaining what inlay hints are (inline type annotations, param names) and giving examples, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like performance implications or dependency on language servers.

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?

Single sentence with an example, no fluff. Front-loaded with the core functionality. Every word earns its place.

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?

No output schema is provided, yet the description does not specify the return format (e.g., list of objects with position and text). While the tool's purpose is clear, incomplete return info may hinder an agent's ability to parse results.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description reiterates 'line range', matching startLine and endLine, but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 tool returns inlay hints (inline type annotations, param names) for a line range, with specific examples (TS types, Rust lifetimes). This distinctively identifies the resource and verb, differentiating it from siblings like getHover or getCodeLens.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., getHover, getDocumentSymbols). The description lacks context about prerequisites, language support, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without comparative decision-making info.

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