Prepares a function or method for call hierarchy inspection by verifying whether the symbol supports call graphs, so you can inspect callers and callees.
Prepare a function or method for call hierarchy inspection. Verifies if the symbol supports call graphs.
| 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 full behavioral burden. "Verifies if the symbol supports call graphs" hints that the result is a support check, but the description says nothing about failure behavior (error vs. negative result), whether an LSP server must be running, whether the file must be open, or whether any state is mutated.
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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the verification purpose second. No filler, though the brevity is part of why the parameter and workflow gaps go unaddressed.
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?
The output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but this tool sits in a multi-step workflow with a directly named sibling (`call_hierarchy`) and the description omits that relationship entirely. Combined with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter documentation, an agent has too little to call this correctly.
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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It implies the symbol is located by position (file_path/line/character) but says nothing about the optional `symbol_name` parameter or why it exists alongside a positional locator, leaving a required-vs-optional ambiguity unexplained.
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 ("Prepare a function or method for call hierarchy inspection") and adds the precondition being checked ("Verifies if the symbol supports call graphs"). However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `call_hierarchy` or `get_type_hierarchy`, so an agent cannot tell from the description why both `prepare_call_hierarchy` and `call_hierarchy` exist.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Critically, this appears to be a prerequisite step for `call_hierarchy`, yet the description never says the two are meant to be used in sequence, nor what to do if verification fails. The only implied context is "before inspecting a call graph," which the agent must infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.