Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
codegraph

codegraph

by attnstack
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

search

Find code symbols by exact or prefix match, with optional result limits, to locate definitions in TypeScript/JavaScript repositories.

Instructions

符号搜索：精确匹配 + 前缀匹配

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses only the matching strategy (exact plus prefix). It says nothing about case sensitivity, result ordering, truncation behavior, or whether a prefix hit is returned alongside an exact hit, all of which materially affect a search call.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single short phrase with no wasted words and the matching semantics are front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The brevity is achieved by omitting needed information, not by tight editing.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves too much unsaid: no parameter meaning, no return shape, and no disambiguation from five sibling code-analysis tools. An agent could invoke it, but would do so largely on guesswork.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. It never mentions the required 'query' argument or the 'limit' argument, leaving the agent to guess whether 'query' is a symbol name, a regex, or a qualified path, and whether 'limit' defaults or caps results.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names a verb (search) and resource (symbol) and discloses the matching modes (exact + prefix), which is more than a tautology. However, it is a bare fragment that never defines what a symbol is in this server, and it gives no clue how it differs from siblings such as trace, impact, or who_calls.

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 instead of who_calls, impact, trace, hotspots, or archaeology, and no preconditions or exclusions are stated. The only implied usage is 'when you want to find a symbol', which the agent must infer from the name alone.

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