Extract a SystemVerilog file outline—modules, ports, signals, parameters, instances, and functions with line numbers—to locate and navigate code structure.
Outline of a file: modules, ports, signals, parameters, instances, functions... with line numbers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | SystemVerilog file path, absolute or relative to the workspace root |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about read-only nature, output format/structure, size limits, or behavior on unparseable files. It does at least disclose that line numbers accompany each symbol, which is useful return-shape information beyond the schema.
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 front-loaded sentence that gets to the symbol list quickly with no filler. The trailing 'functions...' ellipsis is slightly vague and hints the list is incomplete, but the overall economy is good.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should convey the returned structure more fully. Listing symbol kinds and line numbers helps, but the ellipsis and the absence of any statement about output shape (flat list vs nested hierarchy) leave the agent guessing.
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?
With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents that 'file' is a SystemVerilog path absolute or workspace-relative. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 names the resource (a file) and the specific content returned (modules, ports, signals, parameters, instances, functions) plus line numbers, so the agent knows it is a per-file symbol outline. It does not distinguish itself from sibling workspace_symbols, which appears to cover a similar symbol-listing role.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives; the closest sibling, workspace_symbols, is never mentioned. The only implied guidance is that it operates on a single file, which an agent must infer from the phrase 'of a file'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.