Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
code-intel-mcp

code-intel-mcp

by dothinh115
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_exports

List all exported symbols from a file or folder, including functions, classes, types, and consts. Returns name, signature, file, and line numbers to quickly discover file contents.

Instructions

List all exported symbols (functions, classes, types, consts) from a file or folder. Returns name, signature, file, line number, and total file lines. Use this instead of reading a whole file to discover what it contains.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "list_exports"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesAbsolute path to a file or folder to scan
depthNoFolder recursion depth (default 1, 0 = top-level only)
filterNoOptional regex to filter by name or signature (case-insensitive)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the operation without disclosing traits like read-only nature, permission needs, or side effects. Listing exports is inherently non-destructive, but the description does not confirm this.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence explains what it does, the second provides usage guidance. Efficiently front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description usefully lists return fields. It covers the primary use case, but could be more explicit about folder scanning behavior (e.g., recursive by default).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists exported symbols (functions, classes, types, consts) from a file or folder, specifying return fields. It distinguishes from reading the whole file but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like file_outline.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear usage context: 'Use this instead of reading a whole file to discover what it contains.' This gives a reason to use the tool but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools