nvim-mcp

by Shooooooooo

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

LSP find references

nvim_lsp_references

Find all references to the symbol at a position across the project.

Instructions

Find all references to the symbol at a position across the project.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "nvim_lsp_references"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`col`	No	1-based column number. Default 1.
`line`	No	1-based line number. Default 1.
`path`	No	Target buffer by file path (must already be open). Ignored if bufnr is set.
`bufnr`	No	Target buffer number. Omit to use the path or the current buffer.
`includeDeclaration`	No	Include the declaration itself. Default true.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the basic purpose and does not disclose behaviors like read-only nature, potential performance cost, or dependency on a language server.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the provided schema and context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema and a moderate parameter count, but the description is sparse. It does not mention what the return value looks like (e.g., list of locations) or that position defaults to line/col 1, though these are inferable from the schema and tool purpose.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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 the tool finds all references to a symbol at a position across the project. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like definition (single jump) and hover (inline info).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like nvim_lsp_definition or nvim_lsp_rename. The description does not mention exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., LSP server must be active).

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