Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
webnav-ts-mcp

webnav-ts-mcp

by illescasDaniel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

references

Find all usages of a symbol at a file position across the workspace to trace dependencies and impacts; include the declaration by default.

Instructions

Find all usages of the symbol at a position across the workspace.

line and column are 1-indexed. column is a UTF-16 character offset on the line (not a visual/display column): a leading tab counts as one character. On a --custom-property/#id/.class token in a .css/.html file (or a name inside an HTML id="..."/class="..." value), answers from the cross-file index (see css_var/selector) instead of the single-file language server, limited to the file's own root (each WEBNAV_MCP_ROOTS root is separate) unless it has no hits there.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>",
      "line": "<line>",
      "column": "<column>"
    },
    "name": "references"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lineYes
columnYes
file_pathYes
include_declarationNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds genuine behavioral detail: the cross-file index path for CSS custom-properties/id/class tokens and the per-root scoping limit with a same-root fallback. But it omits general behavioral facts such as read-only nature, whether declarations are included by default, or result/ordering behavior, so it is only partially complete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the dense second paragraph is devoted to non-obvious positional and routing details rather than filler. It is somewhat information-packed but each 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 position-based query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the risky part (coordinate semantics and special-case routing) but leaves the include_declaration flag unexplained even though it directly affects the result set. Adequate but with a clear visible gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does this well for line/column (1-indexed, UTF-16 offset, tab counts as one character), which is high-value semantics absent from the schema. However include_declaration and file_path receive no explanation, leaving two of four parameters undocumented.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource+scope: "Find all usages of the symbol at a position across the workspace." An agent can distinguish this from definition or hover. It does not, however, contrast itself against close siblings like callers or implementations, which also report usage-like relationships.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage (find usages when you have a position) but never states explicit when-to-use/when-not versus callers, implementations, or definition. It does give one routing rule — CSS/HTML tokens resolve via the cross-file index rather than the single-file language server — but general selection guidance is absent.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools