lsp_workspace_symbolsSearch workspace symbols by case-insensitive query across JavaScript, TypeScript, Python, and Rust files. Filter by symbol kind or path to find functions, classes, or methods.
Return workspace symbols matching a case-insensitive query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kinds | No | ||
| paths | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds one behavioral detail (case-insensitive matching) but omits whether the operation is read-only, how results are returned, whether it searches the entire workspace, or any performance or permission considerations.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the stated purpose, and nothing is repeated unnecessarily.
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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits what the 'kinds' and 'paths' filters do, what the returned symbols look like, and any behavioral caveats an agent would need to invoke the tool 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%, so the description must compensate. It explains only the 'query' parameter's case-insensitive nature; the 'kinds' and 'paths' parameters receive no explanation at all, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.
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'), resource ('workspace symbols'), and scope ('workspace'), plus query semantics ('case-insensitive'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_symbols or search_symbols, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
The description offers no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. It does not tell the agent when to prefer this over lsp_document_symbols or search_symbols. There is only an implied usage, with no contextual routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.