Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
patchwork-os

patchwork-os

by Oolab-labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

getTypeSignature

Read-only

Retrieve the type signature of a symbol at a specific file, line, and column using LSP hover. Returns a clean signature from hover markdown.

Instructions

Type signature for symbol at position via LSP hover. Returns clean signature from hover markdown.

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>",
      "line": "<line>",
      "column": "<column>"
    },
    "name": "getTypeSignature"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileYes
lineYes
columnYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description mentions it uses LSP hover and processes hover markdown, adding behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not discuss what happens if the symbol is not found or the format of the returned signature.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with minimal waste. Key information is front-loaded ('Type signature for symbol...').

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (3 params, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks details about return format or error conditions. It could be more complete, especially since no output schema exists.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the parameters. It mentions 'position' but does not elaborate on file, line, or column, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from the schema alone.

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 it retrieves the type signature of a symbol at a given position using LSP hover and returns a clean signature from the hover markdown. It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like getHover or signatureHelp.

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 such as getHover or signatureHelp. The description does not specify when to prefer getTypeSignature over sibling tools.

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