@penqwin/mcp

search_symbols

Search a repository for exported symbols to locate definitions of functions, classes, or types. Returns file path, language, kind, signature, and doc comments.

Instructions

Searches the entire repository for files that export a specific symbol name. Use this to find where a function, class, type, or interface is defined. Returns: file path, language, kind (function/class/type/etc.), signature, and doc comment. Example: search for 'createClient' to find all files that export a function by that name.

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": {
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "search_symbols"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`symbol`	Yes	The exact exported symbol name to search for. Case-sensitive. Example: 'createClient', 'UserSchema', 'POST'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description lists return fields and gives an example, but lacks additional behavioral context such as performance or case-sensitivity (though case-sensitivity is in the schema). With no annotations, the burden is on the description, which is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences plus an example, all front-loaded with purpose and usage, no unnecessary words.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns, but could mention that only exported symbols are searched.

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 single parameter is well-documented in the schema (100% coverage), and the description reinforces its usage with an example, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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 searches for exported symbol names across the repository, distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with file skeletons, indexes, or stats.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides guidance on when to use (to find where symbols are defined) and includes an example, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives.

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

Deploy Server