lsp-mcp-server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context by specifying that it retrieves signature information specifically for call expressions, which is not captured in annotations. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like server availability or response format details.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get function/method signature information') and immediately specifies the usage context. There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given the annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the schema fully documents parameters, the description provides adequate context for a read-only diagnostic tool. However, without an output schema, it doesn't detail the return format (e.g., structured signature data), leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for file_path, line, and column parameters. The description doesn't add any additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how these parameters pinpoint the call expression location. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Get function/method signature information') and the precise context ('when inside a call expression'), distinguishing it from siblings like lsp_hover (general documentation) or lsp_completions (code suggestions). It uses concrete verbs and specifies the exact resource being retrieved.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when inside a call expression.' This provides clear context for invocation and implicitly excludes usage in other scenarios (e.g., for general documentation or code navigation), helping differentiate it from alternatives like lsp_hover or lsp_goto_definition.

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