List symbols in a C++ file for chosen configurations to navigate code structure; omit or empty configurations to include every available context.
List file symbols in selected configurations.
Omitted or empty configurations select all available contexts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| configurations | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by explaining that omitted/empty configurations select all contexts, which is behavior the schema does not convey. It says nothing about timeout behavior or response size, so it earns a solid but not high score.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the parameter default, with no wasted words. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but the structure itself is efficient.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and annotations cover safety. However, with 0% schema coverage the description should compensate for the undocumented path and timeout parameters, and it does not, leaving a meaningful gap for a three-parameter tool.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only explains one of three parameters ('configurations' defaults to all contexts). The required 'path' (relative vs absolute, file vs directory) and the 'timeout' parameter are entirely undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List file symbols'), and the word 'file' implicitly scopes it against the sibling clangd_workspace_symbols. It does not explicitly name or contrast that sibling, and 'symbols' is left unqualified (functions, types, variables?), 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only guidance given concerns the 'configurations' parameter's default behavior, not when to choose this tool. There is no mention of when to prefer it over clangd_workspace_symbols, clangd_hover, or clangd_definition, leaving the agent to infer the file-scoped use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.