Locate a symbol definition by project, path, line, and column via LSP, returning the definition location as L1 evidence for code analysis.
심볼 정의 위치 (LSP). 결과는 L1 근거로 기록됨.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| line | Yes | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| column | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden alone. It does disclose a real behavioral trait the schema cannot — that results are persisted as L1 evidence — but says nothing about read-only vs mutating side effects, required repo state, or failure modes for an unresolvable position.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two terse fragments, both carrying information (LSP operation, evidence recording), front-loaded. It is efficient rather than padded, though the terseness leaves little room for the missing semantics.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage mean the description should explain what a definition result looks like (a location) and what preconditions apply. Neither is present, so an agent must guess at the return shape and positional conventions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across four required parameters (project_id, path, line, column) and the description adds no clarification — notably whether line/column are 0- or 1-based and what path form is expected. This is a significant gap for a position-based tool where off-by-one errors are common.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the operation (symbol definition lookup via LSP) in a recognizable way, so an agent can distinguish it from oss_lsp_references or oss_lsp_call_hierarchy by name alone. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb and never names the siblings, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as opening the repo first, and no routing to the references or call-hierarchy tools. The note about results being recorded as evidence is context, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.