find_documents_by_nameFind vault files by exact or partial filename. Use when the user mentions a specific file name, PDF title, or screenshot name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| exact | No | If true, only exact filename matches (default false) | |
| filename | Yes | Full or partial filename to match |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the partial-vs-exact matching behavior, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not disclose additional behaviors like case sensitivity or result limits, but with annotations carrying the safety burden this is adequate.
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 concise sentences. The first front-loads the core action and scope, and the second adds a clear usage trigger. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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 simple read-only filename lookup with complete parameter schema and safe annotations, the description covers the essential context. It does not explain the return structure or edge cases like case sensitivity, but given the low complexity and the presence of a clear usage trigger, it is sufficiently complete.
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 100%, with both 'filename' and 'exact' already documented in the input schema. The description's phrase 'exact or partial filename' reiterates but does not significantly extend the schema's parameter documentation. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles parameter semantics.
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 ('Find'), a specific resource ('vault files'), and a clear matching criterion ('exact or partial filename'). It also distinguishes itself from semantic-search siblings by tying usage to explicit filename references, so an agent can quickly tell this apart from tools like semantic_search.
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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'when the user mentions a specific file name, PDF title, or screenshot name.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear enough for most cases.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct resource-action pairs, but the media tools overlap somewhat: get_relevant_frames, get_media_description, and semantic_search_media can all return frame or transcript content. The descriptions clarify scope, but an agent could briefly hesitate before choosing between them.
The set mostly follows a verb_noun pattern like list_user_documents, get_chunk, and summarize_document. However, semantic_search and semantic_search_media break the pattern by leading with an adjective, and list_user_documents uses a redundant 'user_' prefix that list_media does not.
Ten tools is well-scoped for a document and media vault assistant. Each tool addresses a distinct retrieval or summarization need without excessive redundancy or padding.
Search, list, summarize, compare, and media description workflows are well covered. However, get_chunk requires both document_id and chunk_id, and no tool enumerates chunk IDs or retrieves a full document's text, creating a potential dead end for agents that need complete document contents.