kconfig-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

kconfig_search

Find Kconfig symbols by matching name, prompt, or help text with case-insensitive text or regex; name matches rank first.

Instructions

Find symbols whose name, prompt or help text matches query (case-insensitive; a regex is accepted). Name matches rank first.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "kconfig_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: case-insensitive matching, regex acceptance, and that name matches rank first. However, it omits whether a loaded config/session is required, which config is searched, and what happens when results exceed the limit.

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 compact clauses with the core matching semantics front-loaded and no wasted wording; the ranking note is appended where it matters most.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and matching semantics are well covered. Still, a required `name` argument and the `limit` cap go unexplained, and the load/session prerequisite is absent, leaving meaningful gaps for a 3-parameter search tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for 3 parameters, and the description only clarifies `query` (fields matched, case-insensitivity, regex). The required `name` parameter — ambiguous given its bare 'Name' title — and the `limit` parameter are left entirely undefined in both schema and description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('symbols') and even names the fields searched (name, prompt, help text), so an agent knows exactly what this tool retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like kconfig_symbol or kconfig_what_selects, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: text-based lookup of symbols. There is no statement of when to prefer this over kconfig_symbol (direct lookup) or kconfig_what_selects (dependency queries), and no prerequisites such as whether a config must be loaded first.

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

Deploy Server