claude-engram

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

scout_search

Search a codebase semantically to find relevant code, file locations, line numbers, and connections based on a query and directory.

Instructions

Search codebase semantically. Returns findings with files, lines, connections.

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": {
      "query": "<query>",
      "directory": "<directory>"
    },
    "name": "scout_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	Yes	What to search for
`directory`	Yes	Directory to search
`max_results`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Apr 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any authentication needs, or performance implications. Only hints at output structure.

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?

Extremely concise: two short sentences that convey action and output. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

For a simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic output shape but lacks explanation of 'connections' and 'semantic' search. Adequate but not fully informative.

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 coverage is 67% with basic parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states 'Search codebase semantically' with specific verb and resource. Also describes output as 'findings with files, lines, connections', making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like code_pattern_check or find_similar_issues. Usage context is merely implied by the description.

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