Skip to main content
Glama

dialogbrain

by io.github.saloprj
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

search_files

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search files and attachments across the workspace — by content, filename, document type, or origin. For message content use search.messages; for links use search.links.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum files to return.
queryNoWhat to search for (content or filename).
file_originNoFile origin: 'generated' (created by tools), 'received' (from messages), 'uploaded' (manual). Use 'generated' for files the user created/sent. OMIT to include all origins.
in_workspaceNoRun this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected.
document_typeNoFilter by document category. OMIT unless the user explicitly mentions one — picking a value narrows the search and is a common cause of zero-result mistakes.
attachment_nameNoExact filename filter. OMIT to skip (do NOT pass an empty string).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / in_workspace
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected.",
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. Added
  3. Removed
  4. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that attachments are included and scoping is workspace-wide, but says nothing about result shape, pagination, or the effect of the session-workspace default used by in_workspace.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the primary scope statement front-loaded ahead of the disambiguation clause. Every clause earns its place.

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 6-parameter, zero-required search tool with a fully documented schema and complete safety annotations, the description supplies enough to select and invoke it correctly. The only gap is that with no output schema it never hints at what a result row contains, which would help an agent interpret the response.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific behavior beyond the schema — it does not touch the limit ceiling, the OMIT-semantics for filters, or the caution around narrowing document_type that the schema itself documents.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (files and attachments), scopes it ('across the workspace'), and enumerates the searchable axes (content, filename, document type, origin). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearest siblings by naming search.messages and search.links, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It names two alternatives and the condition that selects each ('For message content use search.messages; for links use search.links'), which is strong routing. It stops short of addressing overlap with file-listing siblings (e.g. agents_list_files), so the 'when-not' for this tool itself is not fully closed.

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

All dialogbrain toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources