Find all references to a symbol at a specific file, line, and character using the language server. Locate usages for refactoring and impact analysis.
All references to the symbol at a position (via the language server).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | Absolute file path | |
| line | Yes | 1-based line | |
| character | Yes | 1-based column |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds that the operation uses the language server, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not describe language-server availability requirements, latency, or result completeness.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core operation and mechanism efficiently.
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 low-complexity, read-only language-server tool with 100% schema coverage and rich annotations, the description supplies the essential operation. It implies a list of references without describing output format, but the absence of an output schema makes that a minor omission rather than a critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so file, line, and character are already fully documented. The description adds only the concept of a 'symbol at a position,' which maps naturally to the line/character parameters but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 for high schema coverage is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb-resource pair: find all references to the symbol at a given position. It also specifies the mechanism (via the language server), which clarifies the semantic nature of the search. However, it does not differentiate this tool from close siblings such as lsp_references or vscode_go_to_definition.
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 description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It only implies the use case by describing the operation. With a sibling like lsp_references appearing to perform a similar function, the lack of routing guidance is a meaningful gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.