Return repository dependency and call-graph data, optionally centered on a symbol, so coding agents can trace code relationships and dependencies.
Return repository dependency/call-graph data, optionally centered on a symbol.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No | Optional function, class, or symbol name. | |
| index_dir | No | Optional index storage directory. | |
| repo_path | No | Repository root; defaults to the server --dir. |
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 burden. It does state that symbol centering is optional and that graph data is returned, but says nothing about output format, graph depth/limits, whether an index must exist first (relevant given index_dir), or cost/size of the result.
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 tight sentence with no waste, front-loading the resource (dependency/call-graph data) before the optional scoping. Very brief, which is efficient but leaves little room for behavioral detail.
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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It should mention whether an index is required beforehand and what the returned graph looks like, since an agent has no other source for that.
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 parameters are already documented. The description only adds that symbol centering is optional, which is already reflected in the schema's 'Optional' prefix; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 verb (Return) and resources (dependency/call-graph data) with a scoping qualifier (optionally centered on a symbol). Clear enough to distinguish from siblings like code_intel_search or code_intel_read_file, though it doesn't 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus code_intel_search (symbol lookup) or code_intel_index (index building). The optional symbol scoping is implied but no conditions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.