Locate files and match text patterns across a workspace with grep or glob; read-only access for coding agents.
Search the workspace (grep or glob). Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | ||
| path | No | ||
| pattern | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose 'Read-only', which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about output shape, result limits, path defaults, or how grep and glob differ behaviorally.
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?
A tight two-clause fragment with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. Terseness borders on under-specification, but nothing is redundant.
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 3-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It leaves result format, path behavior, and grep-vs-glob semantics unexplained.
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%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the mode values ('grep or glob'); path and pattern semantics, defaults, and expected formats are left entirely undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb (search) and resource (the workspace), and clarifies the two supported modes (grep or glob). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling ast_search, which is also a search tool, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which search to pick.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no exclusion criteria, and no mention of alternatives such as ast_search or the lsp_* tools. The only routing hint is the mode enum, which is already in the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.