Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
codegraph-mcp

codegraph-mcp

by SiwarKhalfaoui
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Find where a symbol is defined

find_definition

Locate the exact file and line where a function, method, or class is defined by name in a TypeScript or JavaScript codebase.

Instructions

Find the file and line where a function, method, or class is defined, by 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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "find_definition"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesSymbol name, e.g. 'createUser' or 'UserRepository.findById'
graph_pathNoPath to a previously saved graph (default: .codegraph/graph.json)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a file and line, and that it operates by symbol name. However, it does not cover behavior for missing symbols, whether the graph must be indexed, or how multiple matches are handled.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes the key output details. No filler or redundant content.

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 lookup tool, the description states the essential return value (file and line) and the schema covers the parameters. It lacks explicit return format or edge-case handling, but the tool's simplicity makes this adequate.

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 schema already covers 100% of the parameters, including an example with dotted paths. The description only adds the symbol types (function, method, class) and does not provide additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema gives.

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 the file and line for a function, method, or class definition by name. This verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_callers and find_callees, which focus on call relationships.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies use when a definition location is needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to prefer this over siblings like find_callers or impact_analysis. There is no exclusion or comparison context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools