patchwork-os

searchWorkspaceSymbols

Read-only

Search workspace symbols like classes, functions, variables, and interfaces by name using LSP.

Instructions

Search workspace symbols (classes, fns, vars, interfaces) by name via 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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "searchWorkspaceSymbols"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Symbol name or partial name
`maxResults`	No	Max results (default: 50, max: 200)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, so description adds no further behavioral detail. It is consistent but does not disclose additional traits like auth, rate limits, or behavior for empty results.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the action. It is concise but could be slightly improved by noting partial matching (though schema covers this).

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 simple tool (2 params, no output schema, read-only), the description is adequate but lacks details on return format or limits. Sibling tools are not differentiated, affecting completeness.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal additional meaning beyond 'by name' which aligns with the query parameter.

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 action 'Search', the resource 'workspace symbols', and specifies symbol types (classes, fns, vars, interfaces) with mechanism 'via LSP'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'searchWorkspace' and 'navigateToSymbolByName' by focusing on symbol names.

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., searchWorkspace for text search, navigateToSymbolByName for navigation). The description lacks context for when to prefer this tool.

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

Deploy Server