Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
FDEP MCP Server

FDEP MCP Server

by juspay
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

find_element_by_location

Locate code elements like functions, types, classes, or imports by specifying a file path and line number in source code for static analysis.

Instructions

Find code elements (functions, types, classes, imports) by source location

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_number": "<line_number>"
    },
    "name": "find_element_by_location"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYesPath to the source file
line_numberYesLine number in the file
base_directoryNoBase directory path (optional)
element_typesNoTypes of elements to search for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose behavioral traits: no information about permissions needed, rate limits, whether it's read-only or has side effects, what happens with invalid locations, or the format/scope of returned elements. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Find' (action), 'code elements' (target), specific examples in parentheses, and 'by source location' (method). No wasted words or redundant information.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (structure of found elements), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a location-based lookup tool in a code analysis context, users need to know what 'find' means precisely—does it return the element at that exact line, nearby elements, or something else?

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the tool searches for code elements at specific locations, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, edge cases, or search behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('find') and target resources ('code elements') with specific examples (functions, types, classes, imports) and the search method ('by source location'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on location-based lookup rather than analysis, search, or dependency tools. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the most similar sibling 'get_location_context'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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. With many sibling tools for finding/searching code elements (e.g., search_functions, search_types, get_location_context), there's no indication of when location-based lookup is preferred over pattern-based search or when to use this versus 'get_location_context'. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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