Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Free Codin Agent

Free Codin Agent

by office233
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

lsp_calls

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find who calls a function or what it calls at a given file and line. Provide file and line to trace incoming or outgoing call hierarchy.

Instructions

Call hierarchy of the function at file:line: incoming (who calls it) or outgoing (what it calls).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "file": "<file>",
      "line": "<line>"
    },
    "name": "lsp_calls"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileYesSource file
lineYes1-based line
symbolNoIdentifier on that line; its column is found automatically
characterNo1-based column (or give symbol instead)
directionNoincoming

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, openWorld=false, and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds semantic meaning for incoming/outgoing, but does not mention language-server prerequisites, failure modes, or return format.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the core operation and direction options are presented efficiently. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does not explain what the returned call hierarchy looks like or how results are structured. It also omits when-to-use guidance relative to sibling LSP tools, leaving some gaps despite clear annotations and mostly descriptive parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 80%, so parameters are largely documented. The description adds useful meaning beyond the enum by defining incoming as 'who calls it' and outgoing as 'what it calls', which clarifies the key choice the caller must make.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific operation (call hierarchy) on a specific resource (function at file:line) and explains the two direction modes. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as lsp_references or lsp_definition.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains what incoming and outgoing mean but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lsp_references or lsp_definition. It describes output rather than usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools