Identify all functions or methods called from a specific code location to trace execution flow and understand dependencies.
Find all functions/methods that are called by the function at the given position.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| col | Yes | Column number (1-indexed) | |
| file | Yes | Relative file path from project root | |
| line | Yes | Line number (1-indexed) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic operation but does not clarify whether calls are direct or transitive, whether the result is returned as a list, or what happens when no function exists at the given position. The description adds little beyond what the tool name already implies.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the full purpose with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place, and the structure is immediately scannable.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the agent will receive and any relevant limitations. It does not mention return shape, whether the call graph is traversed recursively, or edge-case behavior, leaving a noticeable gap for an agent invoking this tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add extra meaning about how file/line/col are used to locate the function, but per the baseline, this is adequate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Find') with a clear resource: all functions/methods called by the function at a given position. It implicitly differentiates from the sibling call_hierarchy_incoming by stating the outgoing direction, so an agent can distinguish this tool without opening the schema.
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?
No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as call_hierarchy_incoming, find_references, or goto_definition. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit 'use this when' statements, leaving usage context entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.