Retrieve a file's symbol outline in source order, including names, kinds, line ranges, and signatures, to selectively load only the code bodies you need.
List every symbol declared in a file, in source order.
Use this instead of reading a whole file — it returns the outline (name, kind, line range, signature) so the agent can then pull only the symbol bodies it actually needs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | 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 full disclosure. It accurately describes the return content (name, kind, line range, signature) and notes it is a read operation without side effects. It lacks mention of error conditions or performance, but for a simple listing tool this is sufficient and not misleading.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by usage context. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.
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?
For a single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, return content, and rationale. It does not discuss error handling or file size limits, but these are unlikely to be critical for a symbol-outline tool, and the guidance about selective retrieval fills the main gap.
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%, so the description must explain the 'file' parameter, but it does not go beyond the schema's type 'string'. It is implied that 'file' is a path, but no format, expected extension, or validation is mentioned. The description adds no detail about the parameter, leaving the agent to infer.
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?
The description clearly states the tool lists every symbol in a file, in source order, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by framing it as an alternative to reading whole files, making its purpose unambiguous.
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?
It explicitly instructs 'Use this instead of reading a whole file' and explains the benefit: the agent can pull only the symbol bodies it needs. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly differentiates from file-reading or symbol-lookup tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.