Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Dependency Tracer MCP Server

Dependency Tracer MCP Server

by pdogra1299
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_module_symbols

Retrieve all symbols defined in a given file, including functions, types, components, and exports, with optional filtering by kind and export status.

Instructions

List all symbols defined in a module/file: functions, types, components, exports.

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": {
      "codebase": "<codebase>",
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "get_module_symbols"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codebaseYesCodebase name (the name you used when calling index_codebase)
file_pathYesFile path relative to codebase root
kindsNoFilter by symbol kind
exported_onlyNoOnly show exported symbols

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'list all symbols' without details on ordering, nesting, or read-only nature. Minimal beyond purpose.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite 4 parameters and no output schema, the description omits details about return format, what constitutes a symbol, and any behavioral notes. Incomplete for a tool with no annotations.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds little value beyond the schema. It mentions some symbol kinds (functions, types, components, exports) but omits others (class, module, value, pattern) and does not explain required parameters codebase or file_path.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool lists all symbols in a module/file, specifying categories like functions, types, components, exports. It distinguishes from siblings such as get_symbol (single symbol) and search_symbols (search across files).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_symbols or get_symbol. No mention of prerequisites or typical use cases.

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