codetopo_search_symbolsSearch code symbols by name fragment to discover matching entries before exact ID queries.
Find symbols by name (case-insensitive substring of the label) - the discovery step before the exact-id queries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results (default 20). | |
| query | Yes | Name fragment to search for. | |
| 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 and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: matching is case-insensitive and substring-based on the label, which tells the agent a fuzzy query will match many symbols. It doesn't discuss result ordering or how limit truncates output.
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?
One sentence, fully front-loaded: behavior first, then the workflow position. Nothing is redundant with the title, and every clause adds information.
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 read-only search with a fully documented 3-parameter schema, the description covers what the tool does and where it sits in the workflow. With no output schema, return shape (what a matched symbol looks like beyond its label) is left implicit, which is a minor gap.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description nonetheless sharpens the meaning of `query` beyond the schema's generic "Name fragment to search for" by specifying case-insensitivity and that matching is against the label field.
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+resource ("Find symbols by name") and immediately nails the matching semantics (case-insensitive substring of the label). It also positions itself against the exact-id queries, so an agent can distinguish it from codetopo_get_symbol without opening the schema.
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 phrase "the discovery step before the exact-id queries" gives a clear role in the workflow and implies the alternative (get_symbol by id). It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly or stating when not to use this tool, so it's clear context rather than full routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.