Lists the functions a given function calls, helping you trace downstream dependencies and understand code flow. Provide the function name and an optional result limit.
Functions that name calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether the graph is static or runtime, not how unresolved/ambiguous names behave, not that `limit` truncates results, and not any ordering. Only the bare directional semantics are conveyed.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no padding, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise — the terseness is a symptom of missing information, not disciplined editing.
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?
An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, but with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter description coverage the description should compensate and does not. An agent knows the direction of the query but not enough to call it confidently on unusual inputs.
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 both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description hints that `name` identifies the caller function, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about `limit` (default 50, truncation behavior) or what forms `name` accepts (qualified name, file path, symbol ID).
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 a specific result set (functions) and the relationship (called by `name`), which implicitly separates it from the sibling `callers` (reverse direction). It never names the sibling or uses an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return', so it stops 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 guidance at all on when to use this versus `callers`, `find_symbol`, `impact`, or `get_context`. The agent must infer directionality and suitability entirely from a six-word fragment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.