storm_xrefsFetch deduplicated callers, callees, and data references for a target function, using direction and limit filters to map code relationships.
Deduplicated callers, callees and data refs for one function.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| build | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| target | Yes | ||
| direction | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that results are deduplicated and scoped to one function, but does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or pagination despite a limit parameter. It adds some context beyond annotations, but not rich behavioral detail.
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, front-loaded with the core output, and free of filler. It is terse but not bloated.
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?
With 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no parameter detail in the description, an agent cannot determine how to set direction, limit, or build. Output schema handles return values and annotations handle safety, but invocation semantics remain underspecified.
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% for all 4 parameters. The description only implies the target is a function; it does not explain build, limit, or direction's to/from/both enum values. It mentions callers/callees but does not map them to direction, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 (xrefs: callers, callees, data refs) and scope (one function) with a qualifier (deduplicated). It does not distinguish from siblings like storm_find or storm_show, so it falls 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?
No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The description simply states the output; it gives no guidance on choosing this over storm_find or storm_map.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.