Search TwinCAT project declarations and implementations by regex to locate matching units, files, lines, and text. Use it to find PLC code references across a project.
Regex search over all declarations/implementations → unit, file, line, text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kinds | No | ||
| regex | Yes | ||
| max_hits | No | ||
| ignore_case | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the search scope ('all declarations/implementations'), which is useful, but says nothing about result limits, paging, or cost despite max_hits existing.
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 single front-loaded sentence with zero padding and the return shape appended via the arrow. It is efficient, though its extreme terseness contributes to the missing parameter guidance rather than offsetting it.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and annotations cover safety. However, for a search tool with 4 undocumented parameters at 0% coverage, the description leaves invocation-relevant details (especially 'kinds' semantics and result limits) to guesswork.
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, so the description must compensate but does not. Only the implicit 'regex' parameter is hinted at; kinds, max_hits, and ignore_case are left entirely unexplained, including how 'kinds' narrows results.
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 and resource (regex search over declarations/implementations) plus the result shape (unit, file, line, text). An agent can tell it apart from proj_get_code or proj_references, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (proj_scan, proj_get_code, infosys_search_code), and no preconditions. The agent must infer everything from the one-line description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.