Skip to main content
Glama

Symvanta

by com.symvanta

find_http_route

Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve an HTTP route by path + optional method to endpoint + handler (filePath + line bounds). Use instead of grep/locate for URL paths: follows framework router metadata (Express, Fastify, Hono, Laravel, FastAPI, etc.) and resolves dynamic segments, prefix groups, and middleware-mounted routers text search misses.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesRoute path, e.g. "/api/users/:id". Partial paths match.
methodNoHTTP method filter, e.g. GET or POST.
feedbackNoOptional: report how a previous answer worked out; piggybacks on any call.
commitShaNoPin reads to one indexed revision (7-40 hex). Graph tools error with revision_not_indexed when it is not an indexed revision of the scoped repository, or revision_not_servable when that revision's graph was superseded by a later reindex, and echo the revision served back as commitSha; source ops read git objects, so any commit works there. Exception: a kept revision (revisions rows flagged architectureSnapshot) still serves map view:"architecture" as a preserved snapshot.
projectIdNoProject id from init/list_projects. Omit for the active project.
repositoryNoRepository full name, e.g. "owner/repo". Omit when the project has one repository.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it parses framework router metadata for Express, Fastify, Hono, Laravel, FastAPI, etc., rather than doing text search, and can resolve dynamic segments and mounted routers. It doesn't cover no-match behavior, but this is a minor gap for a read-only resolver.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences carry the full definition: the first states what the tool resolves and returns, the second gives direct usage guidance and capability context. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only lookup with one required parameter and no output schema, the description explains the input, the output shape (endpoint + handler with filePath and line bounds), and the routing-aware behavior. It doesn't specify return cardinality or no-match behavior, but the combination of description and full schema coverage is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, with the schema already documenting path, method, feedback, commitSha, projectId, and repository. The tool description reinforces the core path+method semantics but adds no significant parameter details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a precise verb, 'Resolve', and a clear object: 'HTTP route by path + optional method to endpoint + handler (filePath + line bounds)'. It also explicitly contrasts the tool with grep/locate for URL paths, making it easy to distinguish from sibling search tools like locate.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use it: 'Use instead of grep/locate for URL paths'. It explains why by saying it follows framework router metadata and resolves dynamic segments, prefix groups, and middleware-mounted routers that text search misses, giving clear selection guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Symvanta toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools generally target distinct operations—repository attachment, symbol resolution, graph traversal, source access, indexing health—and the detailed routing notes reduce ambiguity. A few pairs still overlap in intent (quick_lookup vs locate symbol, context vs ask_codebase), so it is not perfectly unambiguous.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and readable, but the set mixes verb_noun patterns like add_repository and list_projects with single-word nouns/verbs like context, history, map, relate, and source, plus one acronym (adr). There is no predictable convention across the full surface, though individual names are clear.

Tool Count3/5

25 tools is at the high end for a single MCP server and falls in the 'feels heavy' range. The breadth is justified by the code-intelligence/query domain, but the selection surface is large for an agent to navigate efficiently.

Completeness4/5

The code indexing, search, graph query, source access, history, ADR, test lookup, and scope estimation needs are well covered. Minor gaps remain—no detach/remove repository, no ADR content editing, and source access is gated by an add-on—but these are workable.

Resources