Need to find where a symbol is defined? Resolve it through the language server and jump directly to its source code.
Jump to where a symbol is defined, resolved by the language server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Symbol name to look up |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that resolution is handled by the language server and implies a read-only navigation action, but it does not mention failure cases, response shape, or any side effects. This is adequate for a simple lookup but leaves some behavioral ambiguity.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence that communicates the action, target, and resolution mechanism without any filler. Every word contributes value.
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 simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the core behavior. However, there is no output schema and no explanation of what 'jump' returns (e.g., location, range), nor any guidance on prerequisites like an active language server. This leaves some gaps for an agent deciding how to handle the response.
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 covers the single parameter 'name' with 'Symbol name to look up' at 100% coverage. The description's phrase 'where a symbol is defined' adds minimal semantic context beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Jump to where a symbol is defined') and a clear resource (the symbol's definition). The word 'definition' inherently distinguishes this from siblings like find_references and find_implementations, and 'resolved by the language server' adds technical precision.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does without situational cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.