Locate classes, functions, or methods by name to retrieve file paths, exact line bounds, parameter signatures, and docstrings.
Locate classes, functions, or methods by name. Returns file paths, exact line bounds [start_line, end_line], parameter signatures, and docstrings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The symbol name or substring to search for (e.g. 'assemble_piece', 'UserSession'). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden; it partially does by disclosing the return payload (paths, [start_line, end_line] bounds, signatures, docstrings) and implying a read-only lookup. It stays silent on substring vs. exact matching behavior, result limits, and what happens with multiple matches.
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?
Two tightly packed sentences, zero redundancy, with the core action front-loaded and the return values following immediately.
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?
The output is described in prose, which offsets the absent output schema, but for a tool in an indexed-codebase family the description omits whether indexing is a precondition and how ambiguous matches are resolved, leaving real gaps for an agent deciding how to call it.
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?
The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage including an example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the notion of matching 'by name', which is already implied by the schema's 'symbol name or substring' text.
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 uses a specific verb ('Locate') with a concrete resource ('classes, functions, or methods by name') and enumerates what comes back (paths, line bounds, signatures, docstrings). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from look-alikes such as get_symbol_slice or get_outline, so it stops 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?
Usage is only implied: 'by name' signals this is a name-based lookup, but the description never states when to prefer it over get_outline, get_symbol_slice, or index_codebase, nor any prerequisite such as requiring an indexed codebase first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.