Search workspace source files for query terms, returning ranked file:line hits and read ranges.
Locate query terms in workspace source, with ranked file:line hits and read ranges. include uses workspace-relative paths/globs: *.py is root-only; **/*.py is recursive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| top_k | No | ||
| include | No | ||
| per_file | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose scope (workspace source) and that results are ranked line-level hits with read ranges. It is silent on defaults (top_k=20, per_file=1), what an empty query does, and whether results are truncated or paginated.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result shape, followed by the one parameter detail that actually needs prose. Every clause earns its place.
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?
Although an output schema exists (so return values needn't be restated), a 4-parameter, zero-annotation tool needs more than one parameter explained. The semantics of query, top_k, and per_file are absent from both schema and description.
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 0% across 4 parameters, and the description only clarifies one of them (include), where its root-only vs recursive glob explanation is genuinely valuable. query, top_k, and per_file remain undocumented, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
Clear verb+resource ("Locate query terms in workspace source") plus the shape of the result (ranked file:line hits, read ranges). It never names or contrasts with siblings like find_symbols, find_usages, find_files, or select_context, so an agent must infer the distinction on its own.
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 glob note implies the tool is a path-scoped text search, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternatives (find_symbols for symbols, find_usages for references, find_files for filenames). The agent is left to guess which search tool fits.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.