List every symbol called by a given symbol to map dependencies, trace call graphs, and assess impact across the codebase.
List symbols called by the given symbol.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It states the core list behavior but does not clarify whether callees are direct or transitive, or what kinds of symbols are included.
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 sentence with no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.
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 tool is simple and has an output schema, so return details need not be repeated. Still, the missing direct-versus-transitive distinction and lack of annotations leave room for agent misunderstanding.
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%, but the description gives the sole 'symbol' parameter a clear role as the source being queried. It does not specify the expected symbol format, such as fully qualified names or display names, leaving a partial gap.
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 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'symbols called by the given symbol'. This unambiguously distinguishes it from the inverse sibling callers_of.
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 explicit when-to-use, exclusions, or alternative tools are mentioned. However, the name and wording imply this is the tool for outgoing call-relationship queries, so usage is inferable but not fully guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.