Outline a file's declared types, methods, and fields with line numbers to reveal its API surface without reading the body.
Outline one file: every type, method, and field it declares, with line numbers. The API surface of the file without reading its body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | Path relative to the repo root |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It accurately describes the operation as outlining symbols and notes it does not read the file body, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive or mention any side effects, though for a read-only tool this is minor.
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 sentences, zero filler. The core action ('outline one file') is front-loaded, and the clarifying phrase about the API surface is concise and valuable.
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 tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it specifies what is returned (symbols with line numbers) and what is not done (reading the body). Minor gaps like handling of large files or edge cases are not critical for basic usage.
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 100% for the single 'file' parameter, which is already documented as 'Path relative to the repo root'. The description adds no additional parameter-specific guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('outline') and resource ('one file'), and clearly enumerates the output ('every type, method, and field it declares, with line numbers'). It differentiates from siblings by specifying the scope is the entire file's API surface, not a single symbol or body.
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 implies usage (when you want a file's API surface without reading its body) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like find_symbol or get_symbol_body. The context is clear but exclusions are left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.