Get parameter names, types, and required arguments for a function call at a given file position by specifying line and column.
Get parameter information for a function call 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 full disclosure burden. 'Get' communicates a read-only lookup and 'at the given position' scopes the operation, but the description does not mention what happens at non-function-call positions, whether multiple signatures are returned, or what an empty/unavailable result looks like.
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 or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to the basic purpose and target of the tool.
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 simple tool with fully described parameters, the description is minimally adequate: it states the operation and where to apply it. However, with no output schema and no usage guidance, an agent is left to infer return shape, exact positioning semantics, and when this tool should be preferred over siblings.
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 input schema fully documents all three parameters with clear descriptions (file path, 1-indexed line, 1-indexed column), so the schema already handles parameter meaning. The description adds only the notion of a function-call position, which is context rather than additional parameter-level detail.
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 ('Get') and specific resource ('parameter information for a function call at the given position'), so the core purpose is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related sibling tools like hover or document_symbols, but the function-call parameter focus is a meaningful differentiation.
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?
The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hover or find_references. It does not state that this is useful for inspecting call-site arguments or that it should not be used for other inspection needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.