bsl-ls-mcp

bsl_references

Find where a BSL method is used by full name in 1C codebases. Identify references to analyze callers and navigate code.

Instructions

Где используется 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_references"
  }
}

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

C2.9/5.0

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 behavioral burden, and it delivers almost nothing: no indication of search scope (project-wide vs. file), whether results depend on an index, whether it is read-only, or how many references are returned. Only the output schema hints at results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is terse rather than bloated, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification for a lookup tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a 1-parameter read tool the description is minimally viable, but with no annotations it should say more about scope and indexing prerequisites.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does provide a concrete format example ('ОбщийМодуль.МойМодуль.ИмяФункции') that the schema lacks. However, it gives only a single example with no explanation of the dotted-path convention or edge cases, so the compensation is partial.

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?

States a specific purpose — finding where a BSL method is used — with the resource (method) clearly identifiable. It does not differentiate from the near-synonym sibling bsl_callers, which an agent would need to distinguish (references vs. callers), 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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus bsl_callers, bsl_definition, or bsl_callees, and no prerequisites (e.g. whether the project must be indexed). Usage context is only implied by the verb.

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

Deploy Server