Retrieve the last build's symbol index to inspect POUs, member interfaces, variables, tasks, and types; filter by substring or show interfaces only.
Symbol index of the last build: POUs, their member interfaces (inputs/outputs/locals with types), variables, tasks, types. Optional: query=substring, interfaces=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| solution | No | ||
| interfaces | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait: the index reflects the *last build*, implying a build must have run, and that interfaces must be opted into. It says nothing about read-only semantics, what happens when no build exists, or result size/pagination.
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?
Two compact sentences with the returned content front-loaded and options deferred. The telegraphic phrasing ('types. Optional: query=substring') is efficient but verges on terse shorthand that could read ambiguously.
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?
A 4-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema needs more: the format of the returned index, the meaning of project vs solution, and the build prerequisite are all unstated. The description names what is indexed but not enough for an agent to call it confidently in all cases.
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 0%, so the description must compensate and only partly does. It clarifies that query is a substring match and that interfaces is a boolean toggle, but project and solution — half the parameters — are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific resource and scope: a symbol index of the last build, enumerating POUs, member interfaces with types, variables, tasks and types. An agent can tell this is a post-build symbol lookup rather than a build or state tool. The verb is implicit and no sibling is named, 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. It never contrasts itself with stone_api_search (searching API reference) or stone_solution_state (current solution state), which are the obvious alternatives an agent would weigh. The 'Optional:' line describes parameters, not usage conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.