search_symbolsSearch code symbols in a SQLite workspace index by query to locate functions, methods, classes, variables, interfaces, and types across files.
Search symbols from the SQLite workspace index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kinds | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| contextAfter | No | ||
| contextBefore | No | ||
| includePreview | No | ||
| refreshIfStale | No |
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. It implies a read-only search against an index, but says nothing about index staleness, whether a refresh occurs, rate limits, or the shape/size of results. The existence of a refreshIfStale parameter hints at staleness handling, but the description never explains it.
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 no filler, which is structurally clean and front-loaded. But it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely economical given the tool's complexity.
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 7-parameter search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and full schema-description gaps, this one-liner is inadequate. It gives no return-value expectations, no pagination/limit behavior, and no guidance on index freshness, leaving significant gaps an agent must fill by trial and error.
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?
Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no semantics for any of them. The query matching behavior, the meaning of the kinds enum, limit bounds, contextBefore/After, includePreview, and refreshIfStale are all 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 (search) and resource (symbols) scoped to the 'SQLite workspace index', which does gesture toward the indexed-vs-LSP distinction among siblings. However, it never names or differentiates itself from close siblings like lsp_workspace_symbols, list_symbols, or find_indexed_definition, so an agent cannot pick confidently between them.
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 prerequisites, and no mention of the many available alternatives (lsp_workspace_symbols, list_symbols, get_index_status). The agent is left to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.