Locate all usages of a symbol in a 1C (BSL) codebase by providing its full name, such as 'CommonModule.MyModule.MyFunction', to find every reference across the project.
Где используется символ. full_name: 'ОбщийМодуль.МойМодуль.ИмяФункции'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| full_name | Yes |
| 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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and gives an input example, but does not describe the output format, side effects, or any access requirements. Since this appears to be a read-only lookup, some mention of return structure would be expected.
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 conveys the core purpose and an example. It avoids fluff and is appropriately front-loaded. It could be slightly more structured, but it is concise and to the point.
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 complexity of the tool and the presence of siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not explain when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it describe the output even though an output schema exists. The lack of behavioral context makes it hard for an agent to fully anticipate the result.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description is the only source for parameter meaning. It provides a concrete example format (CommonModule.MyModule.FunctionName), which clarifies the expected structure. However, it does not explicitly define what 'full_name' encompasses beyond the example, leaving some ambiguity.
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 states the tool finds where a symbol is used, which is a clear verb+resource. It gives an example of the input format, helping distinguish it from callers/callees that focus on call relationships. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it is not, so it's slightly less specific than the ideal.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bsl_callers or bsl_callees. The description does not mention any exclusions or contexts where it is more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.