Find the shortest call path between two code symbols, following edges at or above a specified confidence level. Use it to trace call chains in a codebase.
Shortest call path from one symbol to another, following edges at or above min_confidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_depth | No | ||
| to_symbol | Yes | ||
| from_symbol | Yes | ||
| min_confidence | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses shortest-path semantics and min_confidence filtering, but omits directionality, no-path behavior, and how max_depth truncates traversal.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the core operation and the confidence-threshold condition.
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 4-parameter path tool with no annotations and 0% schema descriptions, the one-sentence description leaves max_depth and traversal details undocumented. An output schema exists, so return values need less coverage, but key input semantics remain incomplete.
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%. The description clarifies from_symbol/to_symbol as endpoints and min_confidence as an edge threshold, but max_depth is never explained despite having a default of 6, so it only partially compensates.
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 operation: shortest call path between two symbols, with an edge-confidence threshold. It implies a graph-traversal purpose distinct from direct-call siblings like what_calls, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 guidance or alternatives are provided. The agent must infer that this is for connectivity/path queries rather than direct call inspection or symbol lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.