lsp_diagnosticsDetect syntax errors in JavaScript, TypeScript, TSX, Python, and Rust files and return Tree-sitter parse diagnostics for a specified path.
Return lightweight syntax diagnostics from tree-sitter parse errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | 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 burden, but it does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait: results come from tree-sitter parse errors and are 'lightweight,' implying no type or semantic diagnostics. It stops short of stating prerequisites (must the file be open/indexed?), whether it reads from disk, or the return shape.
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?
A single tight sentence with the key qualifier ('lightweight', 'tree-sitter parse errors') front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is wasted, though there is very little content to structure.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter leave real gaps: the agent does not know the diagnostic format (line/column/severity), whether it is limited to parse errors versus lint or type errors, or any path constraints. For a diagnostics tool this is under-specified.
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% and the single 'path' parameter is never mentioned in the description. It does not say whether the path is absolute or relative, whether it must point to an indexed file, or whether directories are accepted, so the description does not 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 ('syntax diagnostics'), and qualifies the source as tree-sitter parse errors rather than full LSP analysis. This is clear and self-contained, but it never names or contrasts with any sibling tool, so an agent gets no explicit differentiation signal beyond the name.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent must infer that this is the syntax-error tool and guess how it relates to siblings like get_ast_tree, run_query, or lsp_document_symbols; nothing in the text routes it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.