Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
patchwork-os

patchwork-os

by Oolab-labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

goToDefinition

Read-only

Navigate to the definition of a symbol by providing file path, line, and column, using VS Code Language Server Protocol.

Instructions

Go to the definition of 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": "goToDefinition"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lineYesLine number (1-based)
columnYesColumn (1-based)
filePathYesWorkspace or absolute path

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 'readOnlyHint' annotation already indicates this is a read-only operation. The description adds 'using VS Code LSP' but does not elaborate on behavior (e.g., what happens if the symbol is not found, whether it opens a new tab). This is adequate given the annotation, but barely adds value beyond it.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to the core purpose.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple navigation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is sufficient. It communicates the essential purpose and mechanism. It does not describe the return value (e.g., navigating in the editor), but that is implied for a 'go to' action.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add any extra semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's action ('go to the definition of a symbol at a given position') and the mechanism ('using VS Code LSP'). However, it does not distinguish itself from closely related sibling tools like 'goToDeclaration' and 'goToTypeDefinition', which could cause confusion.

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 is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'goToDeclaration' or 'goToTypeDefinition'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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