Locate a symbol anywhere in the project using language-server intelligence instead of text search. Get each match with its file and line.
Find a symbol by name anywhere in the project, resolved by the language server rather than by text search. Returns each match with its file and line.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Symbol name or fragment | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 25) |
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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that resolution is via the language server rather than text search, and that results include file and line. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but that is strongly implied by 'find'. It also omits any potential caveats such as index availability or performance trade-offs, which would be useful for a tool with no annotation safety profile.
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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundant information. It is a model of concise, efficient writing.
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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to call it correctly: it tells you what input is expected, what it does, and what the output contains (file and line). It could mention the project-wide scope explicitly, but that is already in the first sentence. The only missing piece is explicit routing to sibling tools, but that falls under usage guidelines rather than completeness.
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%, with both 'name' and 'limit' clearly described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as matching semantics or the meaning of the limit. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 clearly states the tool finds a symbol by name anywhere in the project, distinguishes itself from text search by noting it's language-server resolved, and implies a different purpose from sibling tools like find_definition or find_references. The verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.
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: you use this when you have a symbol name and want to locate it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any of the sibling tools as alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the tool names and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.