Locate every repo-wide mention of an identifier, including calls, types, variables, and imports, and show the enclosing symbol. Use exact, case-sensitive word-boundary matching to trace usage.
Every mention of an identifier repo-wide (calls marked [call], plus types, variables, imports), with the enclosing symbol. Word-boundary, case-sensitive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Identifier to find (exact, case-sensitive) | |
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.17.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose matching semantics: word-boundary, case-sensitive, all reference kinds, and that results carry the enclosing symbol. It omits any note on result caps, performance, or the 300-item limit behavior, so it is good but not complete.
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 tight sentences with the scope front-loaded and zero filler; the parenthetical efficiently enumerates reference kinds without padding.
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 2-param read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers intent and result content partially but says nothing about the undocumented 'limit' parameter, result truncation, or pagination across a repo-wide search. Usable but leaves an agent guessing on scale-related behavior.
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 coverage is 50%. The description reinforces 'name' semantics (word-boundary, case-sensitive matching, which goes slightly beyond the schema's 'exact, case-sensitive'), but the 'limit' parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving half the surface unexplained.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Every mention of an identifier repo-wide', and enumerates the reference kinds included (calls marked [call], types, variables, imports), which implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like who_imports (imports only) and find_symbol (declaration lookup). It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, so 4 rather than 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?
Usage is implied by the purpose — an agent can infer this is for finding all usages of an identifier — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing (e.g., vs. find_symbol, who_imports, or analyze_impact). Adequate but with a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.