codetopo_get_symbolFetch full details for a code symbol node: kind, location, tier, definitions, and references from a codetopo index. Returns an error if the node id is unknown.
One node in full: kind, location, tier, defines and refs. Errors when the id is unknown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | Yes | Node id to fetch. | |
| db_path | Yes | Path to the index database. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavioral value by listing the returned fields and disclosing the failure mode ('Errors when the id is unknown'), which annotations do not convey.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the essential fact (full node) and appends the error condition. Terse to the point of mild crypticness ('defines and refs'), but no wasted words.
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 two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the returned payload fields and the error case, which is sufficient for correct invocation. It omits any notion of cost, pagination, or node-id provenance, but nothing critical is missing.
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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents node and db_path. The description only indirectly confirms node is an id via the unknown-id error case and says nothing extra about db_path, matching the baseline for fully documented schemas.
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 resource (one node) and enumerates what 'in full' means: kind, location, tier, defines and refs. Clear against list-oriented siblings like codetopo_search_symbols, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: fetch a single known node id. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over codetopo_search_symbols, codetopo_neighborhood, or codetopo_descendants, leaving the agent to infer the id-lookup vs exploration split.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.