Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
netcoredbg-mcp

netcoredbg-mcp

by thebtf
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

find_code_symbol

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find C# symbol definitions by name and optional kind to quickly pinpoint code elements during .NET debugging sessions.

Instructions

Find a C# symbol definition by name and optional kind.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "find_code_symbol"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNo
nameYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.17.2

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that it finds a definition specifically, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as case sensitivity, search scope, or behavior on not found.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is concise with no unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. However, it omits context like search scope (e.g., entire workspace) and what happens if no symbol is found.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description only states 'by name and optional kind', adding no details about valid values for 'kind' or format constraints. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('C# symbol definition'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling 'find_code_references' which locates references, not definitions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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 'find_code_references'. The implied context is searching for a definition, but no when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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