Locate all usages of a Java symbol in a project by specifying its file path, line number, and character offset.
Find all references to the symbol at the given position.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes | ||
| line | Yes | ||
| character | Yes | ||
| include_declaration | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.0.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "default": 20,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "default": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Output schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -trueOutput schema / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "result": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "description": "Result returned by references.",
+ "properties": {
+ "hasMore": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "items": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "description": "Paginated source location item.",
+ "properties": {
+ "inWorkspace": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "offset": {
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "range": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "description": "One-based source range returned by public tools.",
+ "properties": {
+ "end": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "description": "One-based source position returned by public tools.",
+ "properties": {
+ "character": {
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "line": {
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "line",
+ "character"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+ },
+ "start": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "description": "One-based source position returned by public tools.",
+ "properties": {
+ "character": {
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "line": {
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "line",
+ "character"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "start"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+ },
+ "uri": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "uri",
+ "offset",
+ "inWorkspace"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "limit": {
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "nextOffset": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+ },
+ "offset": {
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "totalItems": {
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "items",
+ "totalItems",
+ "offset",
+ "limit",
+ "hasMore"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ ]
+ }
+}Output schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "result"
+]Output schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-resultAdded value: +trueDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination via limit/offset, the effect of include_declaration, or any performance characteristics. The minimal description leaves many behavioral aspects undocumented.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by listing key parameters or use cases.
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?
Given no annotations and moderate complexity (6 parameters, paging), the description is too sparse. It does not explain paging or the inclusion of declarations. An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, but behavioral completeness is lacking.
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 description adds no information about the parameters. With 6 parameters (3 required), the description should clarify their roles, but it only references the symbol position implicitly. This is insufficient.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'find' and resource 'references', and specifies that it operates on a symbol at a given position (file_path, line, character). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'definition' and 'type_definition'.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as 'definition', 'implementation', or 'type_definition'. The description lacks any context for appropriate usage or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jonmmease/jons-mcp-java'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server