lsp_hoverRetrieve markdown hover documentation for a code identifier at a zero-based language-server position in a file, clarifying types and signatures on demand.
Return markdown hover contents for the identifier at a zero-based LSP position.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| line | Yes | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| 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, but it does disclose the two most useful traits: the return payload is markdown hover content and positions are zero-based. It says nothing about what happens when no hover exists at that position, whether the file must be open/indexed, or error conditions.
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 action and the coordinate semantics front-loaded. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.
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 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits the path/paths semantics and any failure behavior. The agent cannot confidently construct a correct call from this alone.
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. It clarifies that line/character are zero-based LSP coordinates, which is genuinely useful, but it completely ignores the path vs. paths distinction — path is required while paths is optional and undocumented, leaving a real ambiguity unresolved.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ("Return markdown hover contents") and pins the target down to "the identifier at a zero-based LSP position". That is enough for an agent to tell it apart from lsp_definition or lsp_references, though it never names a sibling explicitly to sharpen the distinction.
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 guidance, no condition that selects hover over lsp_definition/lsp_signature_help, and no mention of prerequisites. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.