Skip to main content
Glama

codebase_symbol

Analyze a code symbol to see its definition, kind, callers, callees, and confidence levels before modifying a function or class.

Instructions

360° view of a symbol: definition, kind, callers, callees, confidence levels. Use to understand a function or class before changing it.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileNoOptional file hint to disambiguate when the name is not unique.
nameYesSymbol name (e.g. 'validateUser').
limitNoMaximum definitions to resolve when the name is not unique. Omit to resolve all.
projectPathNoAbsolute path to the project directory.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.16.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Maximum definitions to resolve when the name is not unique. Omit to resolve all.",
      +  "minimum": 1,
      +  "type": "integer"
      +}
  2. Addedv1.8.2
  3. Removedv1.8.1
  4. Addedv1.7.2

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses return contents (definition, kind, callers, callees, confidence) but says nothing about permissions, read-only nature, performance/rate limits, or how partial/ambiguous resolution is handled. This is adequate but incomplete for a graph-inspection operation.

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 short sentences with zero waste, and the core output is front-loaded before the usage cue. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return shape and a usage context, but it omits how confidence is computed, how ambiguity is resolved, and the tool's safety profile. It is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides, leaving it at the baseline.

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 states a specific verb+resource: inspecting a symbol to see its definition, kind, callers, callees, and confidence levels. It clears the bar for what the tool does, but with 26 siblings it does not explicitly distinguish itself from codebase_symbols or codebase_impact, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives a clear use case: 'Use to understand a function or class before changing it,' which implicitly covers when to call it. However, it never names alternatives or states when another tool (like codebase_impact) would be more appropriate, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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