Inspect type definitions, documentation strings, and signatures at a cursor position. Check parameter types, return values, and docstrings to resolve code details.
Inspect type definitions, documentation strings, and signatures at a cursor position. Use to check parameter types, return values, and docstrings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| line | Yes | ||
| character | Yes | ||
| file_path | Yes | ||
| symbol_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. "Inspect" implies a non-mutating read, and the description says what kind of information comes back, but it omits whether a language server must be running, what happens at an invalid or blank position, and whether the result can be empty.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the concrete use case. No filler or repetition.
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 values needn't be spelled out, and the core action is clear. But with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage, the unexplained symbol_name parameter and absent preconditions (active LSP, valid position) leave real gaps for a 4-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 must compensate and largely does not. "At a cursor position" loosely maps to line and character, but file_path is unmentioned and the optional symbol_name parameter is completely undocumented, leaving an agent to guess its role relative to the cursor coordinates.
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: inspect type definitions, documentation strings, and signatures at a cursor position. This clearly separates it from navigation siblings like go_to_definition or find_references, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.
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?
"Use to check parameter types, return values, and docstrings" gives a concrete use case, so an agent knows when this is the right call. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or pointing to the navigation siblings as alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.