bsl-ls-mcp

bsl_definition

Find where a 1C (BSL) method is declared by its full name (e.g., 'CommonModule.MyModule.FunctionName'). Use for code navigation.

Instructions

Где объявлен метод. full_name: 'ОбщийМодуль.МойМодуль.ИмяФункции'.

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": {
      "full_name": "<full_name>"
    },
    "name": "bsl_definition"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`full_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and delivers almost none. It says nothing about whether the lookup is read-only, how it resolves ambiguous or missing symbols, or what scope (workspace vs. index) is searched. An output schema exists, which mitigates the return-value gap slightly, but the operational behavior is undisclosed.

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?

Two terse sentences: the purpose first, then the parameter format. No filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a single-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description plus schema is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool. It falls short on routing guidance among five similarly named BSL siblings, which is the main way an agent would mis-select this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% — the schema only labels the field 'Full Name' with no format detail — so the description's concrete example, 'ОбщийМодуль.МойМодуль.ИмяФункции', is the sole source of meaning for how full_name must be composed. That is genuinely valuable, though it covers only the dotted-path form and not edge cases like nested or exported methods.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific lookup task — locating where a method is declared — which is a clear verb+resource and implicitly distinct from siblings like bsl_references (usages) and bsl_callers (call sites). It does not, however, name any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference from the tool names alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus bsl_references, bsl_callers, or bsl_callees, all of which involve related BSL symbol queries. The agent must guess from the tool name whether this returns a declaration site or a usage site.

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

Deploy Server