search_codeSearch a Floot project's files (string or regex) with optional glob filters (e.g. ['components/*', 'endpoints/**']). Returns file:line excerpts plus filename matches; capped at 40 results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| glob | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| regex | No | ||
| projectId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by disclosing the result format (file:line excerpts plus filename matches) and the 40-result cap. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral details about output and limits.
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, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose (search project files) and immediately provides key options (string or regex, glob filters) and output characteristics (file:line excerpts, 40-result cap). No filler or redundant statements; every clause adds information.
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 that annotations cover the safety profile (non-destructive, read-only), and the description states the return format and result cap, an agent has enough information to invoke this tool correctly. The parameters are adequately described, and the optional glob filtering is explained with examples. No missing critical information for a search operation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the query parameter (string or regex), the regex boolean (interpretation toggle), and providing examples for the glob filter array. The projectId parameter is implied via 'a Floot project' but not explicitly detailed, which is a minor gap. Overall, the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.
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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('a Floot project's files'), and key capabilities (string or regex, glob filters). It distinguishes from the sibling 'search' by specifying 'project's files' and 'file:line excerpts', making its purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description provides clear context: it is for searching code files within a project, with optional glob scoping. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'search' or 'read_file', or state when to avoid this tool. Given the tool name and description, an agent can infer its role, but explicit exclusions would improve it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly distinct, but there is some overlap among file-modifying tools (edit_file, write_file, apply_patch) and between run_code_in_vm and run_code_in_browser. Detailed descriptions and clearly scoped use cases help agents select correctly.
Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_project, list_files, execute_sql), but a few deviate (apply_patch, card_upload_asset, run_code_in_vm). Overall readable and predictable, with only minor inconsistencies.
With 46 tools, the server exceeds the typical well-scoped range and approaches the extreme threshold. While the broad scope of a full development platform justifies many tools, this count may overwhelm agents and increase misselection risk.
The tool surface covers the full development lifecycle: project creation, file operations, database management, resource provisioning, deployment, testing, and debugging. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete_project or checkpoint management), but core workflows are well-supported.