List functions and methods that directly call a symbol, with file:line for each call site, to trace dependencies before making code changes.
List the functions and methods that directly call a symbol, with the file:line of each call site. symbol: dotted path, Class.method suffix, or bare name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world scope, so safety needs no restating. The description adds real behavioral context by disclosing the return content (file:line of each call site) and the scope limit ('directly', not transitive), which is not in any structured field.
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 sentences, no filler, with the core action and return shape front-loaded and the parameter guidance following. Every clause earns its place.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the accepted symbol syntax, and the returned data shape. It stops short of clarifying how nested or indirect calls are excluded, but nothing essential to a correct invocation is missing.
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% and the sole parameter has no schema-level description, so the description must compensate — and it does, spelling out accepted forms: dotted path, Class.method suffix, or bare name. That is meaningful semantics beyond the bare 'string' type.
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 (list) and resource (functions/methods that directly call a symbol) plus what is returned (file:line per call site). The word 'directly' implicitly separates it from transitive-analysis siblings like impact, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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: an agent can infer this is the incoming-reference query versus callees (outgoing), but the description never states when to choose this over callees, impact, or path. No exclusions 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.