Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
RepoPilot MCP Server

RepoPilot MCP Server

by ziiyue-eee
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

search_symbol

Find symbols in a repository by combining lexical query matching with code structure ranking for precise results.

Instructions

Search symbols with lexical and code-structure ranking.

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": {
      "repository_id": "<repository_id>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_symbol"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes
repository_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose key behaviors. It only mentions ranking without explaining what that entails (e.g., algorithmic details, side effects, or result structure). The behavior is opaque.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and does not front-load critical information. Every word earns its place, but the overall information density is low.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has three parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output (despite an output schema existing) or the ranking mechanism, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no information about the parameters (repository_id, query, limit). The agent cannot infer what values are expected or how they affect the search.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'symbols', adding a qualifier about lexical and code-structure ranking. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file and find_references, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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