Retrieve type signatures and documentation for a symbol by providing file, line, and column. Understand code details and API usage instantly.
Get hover information (type signature, documentation) for a symbol 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It accurately indicates a non-destructive read operation ('Get') and the kind of data returned. It does not mention error cases or reliance on language-server state, but these are minor for a simple hover query.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part contributes: the action, the returned information, and the positional scope.
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?
For a straightforward positional read operation, the description plus fully documented schema gives an agent the essentials needed to invoke it. The main missing piece is usage differentiation from siblings, but no output schema or complex return contract is required here.
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%, with file, line, and col each briefly explained and 1-indexing noted for the numeric parameters. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get'), the resource ('hover information'), and the location ('a symbol at the given position'). It also specifies the content as 'type signature, documentation'. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like signature_help or goto_definition, so it loses the last point.
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 hover over signature_help, goto_definition, or document_symbols. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing hints, so an agent must infer usage from the tool name and general LSP knowledge.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.