Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
code-explorer

code-explorer

by vmikhailov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

resolve_call_target

Resolves dependency-injection bindings to find the concrete implementation of an interface method, helping you trace calls to the actual target code.

Instructions

Find concrete implementations of an interface method (DI resolution).

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": {
      "interfaceName": "<interfaceName>",
      "methodName": "<methodName>"
    },
    "name": "resolve_call_target"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
methodNameYesMethod name.
interfaceNameYesInterface name.
workspacePathNoOptional workspace root path.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.80.5

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does not: it never states that this is a read-only lookup, whether it scans the whole workspace or needs workspacePath, whether results are ranked or complete, or what happens when no implementation exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its terseness is the source of the missing behavioral detail rather than brevity being a virtue here.

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?

For a three-parameter lookup with no output schema, an agent still lacks information about the return shape (list of implementations? locations?) and about fallback behavior when resolution fails. Adequate but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the framing that interfaceName and methodName are a matched pair for DI resolution; it says nothing extra about the optional workspacePath's effect on scope.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Find concrete implementations of an interface method" names a specific verb and resource, and "(DI resolution)" scopes it to dependency-injection wiring, which differentiates it from siblings like find_symbol or get_callers. Minor ambiguity remains about whether it resolves the whole interface or the named method only.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The parenthetical "(DI resolution)" hints at the domain, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over find_symbol, get_callers, or get_node_definition, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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