lsp_completionProvide workspace symbol completion items for the code prefix at a zero-based LSP position, enabling editor autocomplete across files.
Return workspace symbol completion items for the prefix before a zero-based LSP position.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| line | Yes | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| kinds | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| paths | No | ||
| character | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses one trait — that positions are zero-based LSP coordinates and completion is scoped to the prefix before the cursor — but says nothing about indexing requirements, whether the result is ranked/fuzzy, how limit truncates, or why 'workspace' symbol completion differs from document completion. That is a thin disclosure for an unannotated tool.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently written, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing, so it does not merit a 5.
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?
For a 6-parameter, 0%-schema-coverage tool with no annotations and no output schema, the single sentence leaves major gaps: what completion items contain, how kinds/paths/limit behave, and any index prerequisites. An agent could call it, but only by guessing at half the schema.
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 6 parameters, and the description only illuminates the three required ones implicitly (path + zero-based line/character). The optional kinds, limit, and paths parameters are completely undocumented anywhere — no filter semantics, no default, no cap rationale for limit's 500 maximum. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (Return) and resource (workspace symbol completion items) and pins the trigger to the prefix before a zero-based LSP position. It is distinguishable from siblings like lsp_hover or lsp_definition by the word 'completion', but it never explicitly contrasts itself with lsp_signature_help or lsp_workspace_symbols, which are the nearest alternatives.
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 guidance at all. The description does not say when an agent should prefer completion over lsp_workspace_symbols, lsp_document_symbols, or lsp_signature_help, nor does it state any prerequisite such as the file being indexed or open. The caller has to infer the intent entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.