Lists symbols that directly call a given symbol, including cross-language callers, so you can trace dependencies and assess impact before changing code.
List symbols that directly call the given symbol (includes cross-language).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and 'includes cross-language' is a useful behavioral disclosure, but it says nothing about return shape, ordering, or whether non-symbol edges are included.
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 with no waste. The scope qualifiers ('directly', 'cross-language') arrive immediately.
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 one-parameter query tool with no output schema the description is minimally adequate, but it omits how to obtain the symbol_id and what the returned symbol entries contain, gaps that matter for correct invocation.
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 schema coverage is 0% — symbol_id is a bare integer with no description. The description only refers to 'the given symbol' and does not explain the identifier's expected format or that it likely comes from search_symbols, leaving the sole parameter under-specified.
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 verb and resource: it lists callers of a given symbol, with the 'directly' qualifier and cross-language scope. This clearly distinguishes it from find_callees (inverse direction) and impact_analysis (transitive), though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. The word 'directly' implicitly separates it from transitive impact tools, but the agent must infer whether to reach for this versus find_references, which is never stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.